New Drone, similar to the C2C one

maybe we're in the midst of an ARG?

nine inch nails year zero for the most recent example i can think of.

otherwise, take a look at this transformers movie wallpaper download from here.

the comparison to capitola (top) and chad (bot):



[edit on 22-5-2007 by spf33]

Originally posted by vietifulJoe

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by jhamende

The basic concept is this: according to the paper's authors - Jochem Häuser, a physicist and professor of computer science at the University of Applied Sciences in Salzgitter and Walter Dröscher, a retired Austrian patent officer - if you put a huge rotating ring above a superconducting coil and pump enough current through the coil, the resulting large magnetic field will "reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free".

Sounds like an accurate description of this craft huh?

No, it doesn't.

I do not see any "huge rotating ring", all the object appears to rotate in one piece.

I also do not see anything that could be a superconducting coil capable of sustain "enough current (whatever that means) to reduce the gravitational pull", and in this case it should be enough to completely negate the Earth's gravitational pull, not just reduce it.

If this can fly, then everything can fly!

It would help if we have original unedited photos.

Lol that movie is great!!!

ArMap, the craft is a giant ring!!!, and a coil would be in the ring itself wrapped around the inside of the ring like an alternator wrapped over and over. And you say "superconducting coil capable of sustain "enough current (whatever that means)." I figured you would know, but that means a conductor capable of conducting large amounts of amperage. Don't assume to understand theoretical technology. Someone asked how one of these might work and I posted a response with the closest explanation possible from actual physicists. The US military is supporting R&D for this Anti-Grav technology which has been published in scientific journals. And yes this is a giant ring so It does resemble what the scientist are describing!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has anybody thought to look at Hebrew characters and compare them to what is printed on the (wings?) of this craft?

I saw a few that look like numbers. I have Hebrew numbers around my kitchen clock.

Any Hebrew speakers or Readers on here?

Currently I’m at work so I cannot delve into this as much as I want to but to all that were looking for the Transformers language here you go.


Transformers


Have fun hopefully this helps. I for one now believe this to be some viral marketing campaign. But if it is why market it to the UFO community? The majority of us are already going to go see the movie.

Originally posted by spf33
maybe we're in the midst of an ARG?

No. This is reality.

Question is, who will be able to accept it?
A lot of members seem to be unable to, so instead they come up with
unrealist explainations to hang onto the good old world that they knew.
Everyone has their own personal matrix. Maybe this whole thing will blow
over and then everyone can be safe in their box again.

Nice essay, Areal51...

The reason Linda neglects to consult CGI expertise is because she's not a real journalist, per se - Ms Howe has an agenda of her own.

She'll report, quite succinctly in most cases, only those "facts and findings" that support her preconceived notions.

Unfortunately, although this type of "reporting" caters to legions of believers (*sigh* -yes, myself among them), it is not, by any stretch, "journalism". She merely feeds the hungry masses a helping of hope. Legions eat it up - and she knows it.

To end on a positive note - Ms Howe at least increases awareness and seems fearless in her pursuit of her own brand of truth. I guess that's something...

Assuming these two alien probes came from the same place, since they are so similar in design, why is it that the writing on the bottom of the "wings" is so obviously different on each ship? The aliens found a better font to use? How many characters repeat?

And as it's been pointed out, what would you want to write there, anyway? Maybe a few numbers, like we do on our airplanes. Not a lot of junk.

Oh, the alien mind truly is inscrutable.

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
Assuming these two alien probes came from the same place, since they are so similar in design, why is it that the writing on the bottom of the "wings" is so obviously different on each ship? The aliens found a better font to use? How many characters repeat?

And as it's been pointed out, what would you want to write there, anyway? Maybe a few numbers, like we do on our airplanes. Not a lot of junk.

Oh, the alien mind truly is inscrutable.

The working theory here if these are real is that they are not extra-terrestrial. And as I've stated before , its likely that the strange text is there to make us believe these are ET. I don't think that they look very advanced to be ET. Its something I think we are few years from being able to create. It could just be an artists concept like they do with cars too.

Well Virus, I'm not taking sides on real/not real, but a lot of reasons come top mind to answer why the writing is changed as well as it's location.

The 'craft' could be secured in a lager ship by a hanging/suspended method. The changes in writing could indicate that more than one group is involved in a team effort, after all, the many vehicles in Iraq may be similar yet subtly different, and have different lettering schemes, yet all using the same basic numbering patterns.

Thinking is the first requirement, not having a conclusion and building 'logic' around that framework.

What I think would bring a lot more support to this if we can actually get a video of it like I stated earlier, or pictures of it outside California. If it turns out to be a hoax then good job you fooled us all, if it turns out to be some military project then cool we found it and tried to get it to the masses. But on the off chance it turns out to be an alien drone then coolbeans. It all depends what you want to believe.

Don't know if any of you have seen this yet but could this be an explanation for the drone?

UK Police Use Surveillance Drone

Maybe the one in California is a US Army/Air Force version of what our police are using.

[edit on 22/5/07 by Liamoville]

Just a brain dump:

Maybe hoax, whatever. Either way - the writing has another perplexing element:

It is clearly placed there to be read from underneath. All that writing is useless when the craft is resting on the ground (or on the floor of the "motership" *cough*).

Our hoaxer (or designer) obviously put lots of detail on the undersurface of the larger 'blade' - I can't shake the feeling that there is much more to this fact than we have given credit.

I believe a substantial key can unlock the mystery a bit further if we can decipher the symbols/character glyphs. These are being "shown to us" so very conspicuously and in such detail for a reason...

Any code/glyph-breakers amongst us? Not that all this CGI analysis hasn't been interesting - you've all provided a valuable service. But I think we've pretty much beaten the CGI horse to death - let's move on to puzzle components that have not been as thoroughly analyzed...

Thanks, folks - this is certainly a fun mystery if nothing else...

[edit on 5/22/2007 by Outrageo]

C'mon Liam - read up through the thread before posting, please...

We've been through the UK drone issue already... (e.g., see page ten - one page up).

[edit on 5/22/2007 by Outrageo]

Spinning orange ball dude, I can't read your name, it blends to the background.

Did you read up on the thread? I posted a reason, a very human one, to have the writing on the underside.

I think this craft just might be a case in which the clearness and closeness of it makes one think it has to be fake. This thing has been seen 3 seperate times now with 3 sets of pics. I dunno........

Originally posted by projectionist
I am not allowed to give my thoughts on this thread according to the admins. Sure would like to but can't.

You have posted this same message a half a dozen times on different threads. Apparently you have some sort of issue. You posted this

The "Arlington road" ufo has been covered in the past here already but without any pics or video. I searched for a few hours but couldn't find anything on it except posts like this one in other forums (reading these random forums for this long has given me a new found respect with how well ATS is being run, By the way. Great job you guys).

Not too long ago. Obviously something has changed. Your posts, in general, are very short one-liners, exception above. I know admins don't like to see that because they really don't contribute much. But posting this message over and over again isn't contributing much either.

For those of you saying it's a man-made drone.

1. The machines don't use any known propulsion (I dont see any props or turbines).

2. If we do have drones with some completely new propulsion, they wouldn't be flying around where people could take pictures of them.

Originally posted by Latitude

Originally posted by spf33
maybe we're in the midst of an ARG?

No. This is reality.

Question is, who will be able to accept it?
A lot of members seem to be unable to, so instead they come up with
unrealist explainations to hang onto the good old world that they knew.
Everyone has their own personal matrix. Maybe this whole thing will blow
over and then everyone can be safe in their box again.

Condescending. "A lot of members seem to be unable to" for a host of reasons that have been thoroughly explained in this and the original C2C thread--reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with hanging onto "the good old world." I know ufos are real. This is not. Your position is based on belief. Mine is based on evidence. A large segment of the ufo community has matured significantly in their critical thinking skills since the days of Adamski and Meirer, many of whom are here on ATS. We're looking for more convincing evidence that this case provides.

Originally posted by yuefo
I know ufos are real. We're looking for more convincing evidence that this case provides.

To tell you the truth, I don't know for a fact that they are real. But all of the mountains of evidence would suggest they are. I'm in agreement with you about this case.

But to all UFO buffs and disclosure seekers. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it.

Take a look at these pics from a strictly aerodynamic point of view. Leave CGI out of this entirely.

A modern airplane (well, any flyable airplane, actually) is aerodynamic because of the shape of its wings. Air coming over the leading edge of a wing takes longer to get to the trailing edge than air going under the bottom of the wing. This creates a vacuum, which is the Bernoulli Effect. The wing gets sucked upwards into the vacuum, which generates lift for the rest of the airplane. The shape of the wing can be changed by leading and trailing flaps so that a "bigger" wing generates more lift (and drag: You must compensate with more power to stay aloft when flaps are down.)

A helicopter is essentially the same idea, except the wings are rotating. A classic saucer-shaped UFO is also aerodynmic, though powered very differently by a source that generates its own lift by, perhaps, cancelling gravity or creating reverse gravity (maybe). In other words, the pieces of aircraft are there for a reason; they're functional and keep the craft aloft or pointing in the right direction.

I suppose you could make the case that the egg-beater part of this craft is some sort of magnetic propulsion system and that the form follows function, though we don't understand just how. But the many "wings" of the craft don't make sense. They aren't wings. They have no leading and trailing edge. They are, by and large, flat. They cannot possibly be used for holding the craft in the air because they don't generate lift.

Also, given the reports we have for the craft's movement, it moves too slowly for the "wings" to be utilized as control surfaces, because this requires substantial movement through the air to be functional. When you taxi an airplane, the aerilons, controlled by the steering wheel, do not work because the plane isn't moving fast enough. You use the foot pedals, which control the rudder, which reacts against wind generated by the propellor to turn the plane. For those people used to driving a car, this makes for some interesting moments to unlearn some behavior. While in the air, the opposing movement of the aerilons forces the airplane to move one wing down and the other one up. Combined with the rudder, this turns the airplane in flight, but it's still a reaction against the wind.

You don't put big pieces on an aircraft simply to look cool. It does not make engineering sense to do so. It seems to me that these non-functional wing-like structures are a part of the craft designed to make it look somewhat like an airplane, at least at first glance, and thus lend credence that it 'could' fly. People who have no aviation knowledge at all will tend to think these "wings" are functional, thus they add to the believability of the craft. It's kind of like Star Wars and the fighters with wings--totally unnecessary in a space environment--but they look cool.

You have to a bit of a contortionist to come up for other reasons that the 'wings' are there in the first place. And if you do that you come up against Occam's Razor. And when you do that, you come up with: fake.



[edit on 22-5-2007 by schuyler]