FAA Release of Radar Data Signals a new 'Openness Policy' on UFOs

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
reply to post by AntisepticSkeptic

 

Originally posted by AntisepticSkeptic
Where are the scientific papers to prove the zero point gravity that you mention. Where are the scientific papers that zero point gravity that you mention has been developed? Where?

Look I have read many of your posts and all you do is ridicule and demand evidence. You don't come up with explanations to try and get to the truth, as you clearly demonstrated in your reply to my post and in almost every other thread I checked.

Now you normally mostly ignore my posts but this time you thought you could play the evidence game on me.

Ever heard of Andrei Sakharov?
Andrei Sakharov

He was a brilliant scientist that supported zero point gravity to name one. Zero Point gravity is just going from a theoretical framework into an experimental test at Boeing for example Einstein, that's why the US military should not have had this technology fully operational for the last decades.

And pseudoscience links from money scamming snake oil websites don't count as credible just to give you a heads up.

So now you are also demanding what kind of evidence should be sufficient for your taste. BBC news credible enough for you?

Boeing tries to defy gravity

Wow I mean you must be somekind of a genius that you know right off the bat by reading a few news articles in the Internet about the Stephenville sighting that you just jumped out from the bathtub and proclaimed:

"Eureka! This is zero point gravity!"

Thanks for the compliment but I'm not the one you should be crediting, but you would have had already known this if you did some research yourself instead of crying for evidence here all the time.

[edit on 15/8/08 by Fastwalker81]

The link you posted on Sakharov does not say anything about zero-point energy.

As for the Boeing case, they are just doing a research to see if there was any merit in Podlenov's work. They haven't produced anything yet, and most likely they will never do.

reply to post by rickyrrr


Well, you kind of have it backwards, stealth use a type of beacon, a broadcast signal, to not be stealth while in commercial areas for safety reasons, they can turn off the beacon and return to stealth which is part of a much greater and complete system once clear of any commercial traffic.

As I understand it, the body shape and the construction material are by design to reflect radar signal in a non traditional pattern, the exhaust is routed through a baffle and cooling system to prevent heat signature and muffle the loud sounds of the engine. The outside of the craft is treated with a coating that also aids in dispursing light and radar signals. Graphite composite make up a percentage of the construction material.

On radar while in stealth, they (fighter and bombers), do not show up except when passing very close to the originating radar signal and than they appear to be nothing more than a few birds or ground clutter.

Perhaps, someone here can explain the FAA approved radar systems more accurately than I, as I have had limited exposure to those systems lately, but I was licensed by the FCC as a radiotelephone operator and engineer in 1977, which included radar systems. We actually had to get the license to be radio announcers back then, went to school, agree to draft even when there was no draft. Anyway back then, radar was on a monochrome X,Y screen, and the blips shown as a dot with ID numbers with a tail tracer. Now-a-days they are on PC monitors with a graph background showing the landscapes, buildings, etc. The images or blips still show as dots with numbers but you can also see the heading in the form of dotted lines for projected course, you can change the appearance in many ways , the colors, ratio and size, fonts, and in at least one form, the aircraft will appear to stop on the screen if the craft is not tracked with any further movement. This will last for a brief period before it displays "lost object" on the screen.

I haven't ever really seen the old green screen with the sweeping ray line in use, except in the really old books, training films and MASH reruns. But like I said, my exposure is limited. Maybe they use those old green screens on the military still, anybody know?


[edit on 8/16/2008 by eaganthorn]

Originally posted by masterp
The link you posted on Sakharov does not say anything about zero-point energy.

So? I posted the wiki link to Sakharov for people who don't know who he was. This link talks about the theory he developed back in 1967.

Can the Vacuum be Engineered for Space Flight Applications?

As for the Boeing case, they are just doing a research to see if there was any merit in Podlenov's work.

Yes that's exactly what I said in my post if you read it. And they are not the only bigshot organisation testing this behind closed doors, so clearly they are open to the possiblities that this theory could have merit. The project is being run by the top-secret Phantom Works in Seattle, the part of the company which handles Boeing's most sensitive programmes. So saying they are "just" testing is a bit of an understatement...

They haven't produced anything yet, and most likely they will never do.

Sure are you an expert or do you work for one of these companies? I think you are just stating your opinion, which of course is ok. The head of the Phantom Works, George Muellner, told the security analysis journal Jane's Defence Weekly that the science appeared to be valid and plausible.

Not that I don't believe in the possibility of aliens. The fact that this craft got so close to the presidential compound makes me think that this is a super secret sub-orbital aircraft produced by the Russians. They must be trying to piss us off like the recent flyovers of our carriers by Russian bombers. It all happened about the same time on the same sort of timetable. They were probably saying hey we have the same tech you do and can mess with you as well.
Going out on a big limb, maybe someone or something was dropping something off down there at a predetermined spot...that has something to do with The President....hmmmm......

Originally posted by Fastwalker81

Originally posted by masterp
The link you posted on Sakharov does not say anything about zero-point energy.

So? I posted the wiki link to Sakharov for people who don't know who he was. This link talks about the theory he developed back in 1967.

Can the Vacuum be Engineered for Space Flight Applications?

As for the Boeing case, they are just doing a research to see if there was any merit in Podlenov's work.

Yes that's exactly what I said in my post if you read it. And they are not the only bigshot organisation testing this behind closed doors, so clearly they are open to the possiblities that this theory could have merit. The project is being run by the top-secret Phantom Works in Seattle, the part of the company which handles Boeing's most sensitive programmes. So saying they are "just" testing is a bit of an understatement...

They haven't produced anything yet, and most likely they will never do.

Sure are you an expert or do you work for one of these companies? I think you are just stating your opinion, which of course is ok. The head of the Phantom Works, George Muellner, told the security analysis journal Jane's Defence Weekly that the science appeared to be valid and plausible.

There are a lot of politics involved in Boeing's decision to go after such theories, both inside and outside of the company.

My opinion is that nothing will ever be produced, because the theory of relativity describes clearly the nature of gravity as a spacetime bending, and therefore it can not be altered by electromagnetic means.

EDIT:

From the linked article:

To get to the heart of inertia, consider a specific example in which you are standing on a train in the station. As the train leaves the platform with a jolt, you could be thrown to the floor. What is this force that knocks you down, seemingly coming out of nowhere?

This phenomenon, which we conveniently label inertia and go on about our physics, is a subtle feature of the universe that has perplexed generations of physicists from Newton to Einstein. Since in this example the sudden disquieting imbalance results from acceleration "relative to the fixed stars," in its most provocative form one could say that it was the "stars" that delivered the punch. This key feature was emphasized by the Austrian philosopher of science Ernst Mach, and is now known as Mach's Principle. Nonetheless, the mechanism by which the stars might do this deed has eluded convincing explication.

What a load of crap. Inertia is there because when a body accelerates, all the bodies attached to it do not accelerate equally. When the train accelerates, your body does not, and you fall down.



[edit on 17-8-2008 by masterp]

As an ex military air traffic controller I can assure you there is no - 'flick of a switch' batmobile style stealth mode on US stealth A/C. And to be brutally honest, the whole 'they appear like a flock of birds on radar' is a crock of s**t too. They look like normal aircraft - maybe on sub standard 3rd world radar - but on high tech military radar - stealth or no stealth - I can see you matey - maybe from not quite as distant as a 747 but invisible? No.

For example have a look at Janes Fighting Ships and take for instance a US Ticonderoga class cruiser. Have a look at its radars capabilities - they're an old class of ship but they can still track an incoming slice of toast coming towards them at Mach2.
F117A for instance concentrates on radar and heat signature reduction - not sound or visual? If they were bothered about visual stealth they'd either have daytime planes painted sky blue or be coated with mirrors and if you think there's technology which can totally mask the sound of a jet engine do you not think this would have trickled down to airport and civilian jet airliners seeing as there is so much concern about noise pollution?

I've seen some weird stuff in my 13 years of controlling at sea and all over the world - stuff like this? Yes but only on radar - no visual sighting. In fact it was very common - so common in fact you take no notice. For Americans to assume it's their government covering up their technology is a bit small minded. I've seen this sort of behaviour all over the world. Why choose the US? Why not the Government of Papua New Guinea? I know Bush thinks he's the ruler of the known universe and I doubt any alien visitor would see him for anything else other than the complete spoilt prat that he is.

I can't see the link on the OP's topic for some reason so can only comment on what the posts have said here. My stance is I don't know what these things are - just my two penneth on the subject that's all.

Originally posted by masterp
There are a lot of politics involved in Boeing's decision to go after such theories, both inside and outside of the company.

Sure there are, but I don't get your point. They are going after these theories and they are not the only company. So these theories could very well have some merit after all as I pointed out above. They could also very well be bogus, only time will tell.

My opinion is that nothing will ever be produced, because the theory of relativity describes clearly the nature of gravity as a spacetime bending, and therefore it can not be altered by electromagnetic means.

Yes that's what mainstream science has been shouting for years. But could mainstream science be wrong after all?

Taming Gravity

Please keep in mind mainstream science repeatedly dismissed and laughed at theories developed by pioneers throughout our history, only to find the pioneers were right and they were wrong.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
reply to post by macr59

 

There are people who refuse to believe any evidence that is contrary to their paradigm. I have friends who would refuse to believe in ET if a ship landed in their backyard, took them for a ride and brought them back. These people all have the same motto. Ignorance is bliss.
The Stephenville siting has eyewitnesses, radar confirmation, and an FAA statement basically saying "we don't know, or can't say what it was, but it was something."
A queston to all the die hard skeptics. What are you so afraid of?

I have come across a couple of die hard skeptics on this board and I am in two minds to press the ignore button, these people, like you said could indeed have been in stephenville and witnessed the gigantic silent 'craft' fly overhead and then say "so whats the big deal"

I have come to conclusion these people just want attention and are going to be in quite a quandry when disclosure takes place.

Just to add, The USAF still haven't commented on this. Lets see how this takes shape over the next few weeks.

Quite an eye opening story. However, I am having difficulty finding the original release of this story. Can someone enlighten me as to where and what newspaper or media released this information? Many thanks

reply to post by Fastwalker81


That boeing research project was also in a CNN news story that I saw around that same time. When I tell people that they tell me to find it and I never could.. So Thanks for the link!

The CNN news story about Boeing resesarching anti-gravity propulsion was really interesting. It seems to have disappeared though.. It's from the same year though I know..

-ChriS

Originally posted by BlasteR
That boeing research project was also in a CNN news story that I saw around that same time. When I tell people that they tell me to find it and I never could.. So Thanks for the link!

You are welcome. I just stumbled onto the article and found it to be quite interesting.

The CNN news story about Boeing resesarching anti-gravity propulsion was really interesting. It seems to have disappeared though.. It's from the same year though I know..

What's also interesting is that Boeing never announced anything about the experiment ever since. So they could have found nothing at all, but maybe they did and they are keeping it under wraps. Who knows...

What I found hilarious about the article was the comment regarding NASA:

The US space agency, Nasa, is also attempting to reproduce Dr Podkletnov's findings, but a preliminary report indicates the effect does not exist.

Sure NASA we believe you. I bet they found the theory to be true and then out of habit denied the whole thing.



[edit on 20/8/08 by Fastwalker81]

reply to post by kimbo7


The SR is far louder than an F-16....At low altitude, it would require refueling after about 30 min...