I Give Up, We are Out Numbered!

Originally posted by defenestrator

I am an eyewitness to several flying objects I cannot explain....

GREAT! This is the perfict eyewitness account that I will believe in everytime.

Do you discount all eye-witness testimony, really? Let's hope you never have to go to court as the victim of a crime where there are only eyewitnesses to corroborate your story of who the criminal was, and what happened. By your own standards, it seems, nothing is true nor can it be proven by mere eyeball witnessing thereof. I think you have erred on the side of being too skeptical without examining all of the evidence, or at least a sufficient body of reasonable evidence.

Depends on the testimony, doesn't it? If five people identified a man as a person who shot someone you at least have a dead body with a bullet hole in it. You also have other evidence collected, like the shooters alibi or lack thereof. What if five people identified this man, but that man was at a Whitehouse dinner 2000 miles away at the time of the shooting?

Also a better example of an eye witness report might be more like “we saw a man shoot fire from his eyes and burn another man into pure smoke" with no killer, no body, no nothing other than the five people’s testimonies. This is basically what we have had to deal with for, oh, the last 2000 years of people talking about UFOs…hehe

UFOs or ufology is one of the more frustrating and fascinating sandpits we can climb into. Over 60 years and nothing confirmed. Men have spent their lives chasing leads and knocking on doors. Military and Navy have written reports. Books sell. Millions of people have seen UFOs...hundreds or thousands of them might be technical UFOs and not misidentifications. UFOs are real by definition.

A subject that has few boundaries, little evidence and constant speculation is bound to attract hoaxers, fraudsters and lonely BS merchants craving attention. The YT videos are inevitably bad and not always posted by ###holes. Some or just the enthusiasm of people that don't 'look up' often. Light at night = OMG! UFO!

YT is almost completely unlikely to provide any 'smoking gun' evidence. As each year goes by, the tech is too good to tell real from fake. We all know this. There's always been people with stories...same in real life. If we are no closer to knowing what UFOs are in 60 years...don't expect it to change soon.

A lot of us on ATS used to have a blazing passion for the UFO mystery. The endless BS means it's now a burning ember...and none too big sometimes! The point is, get mad, get frustrated, laugh, but don't give up. UFOs is fun, but don't expect to see any answers!

Tremonton, Utah 1952


Pascagoula, Mississippi Incident


1950s UFO footage

reply to post by C.H.U.D.

Some might be, but I think it's unlikely, and making the leap that because something might be true, we must have been visited is unjustified.

I never said we must have been visited. I think that looking at all the existing evidence, the dramatic number of UFO sightings right after WW2 of craft that moved in ways current craft still can't, and the fact that Eisenhower made an announcement stating there were no UFOs all lead towards our planet being visited. Looking at all of the evidence out there, my educated guess, if I had to choose between have we or have we not been visited, I would say yes. No we obviously do not have solid tangible proof of aliens coming here but when looking at all the evidence and having to decide one way or the other, I think the answer is yes. That you don't actually surprises me.


Are you a debunker? A disinfo agent? A professional cynic? What are your standards of evidence in this subject? The actual physical object available for you to inspect? If that is your standard then it is impossibly high and you will never crack the case that is the UFO phenomenon.

You list a variety of reasons why eyewitnesses can be mistaken and you are correct, those are perfectly good reasons why people can be mistaken. It does not follow from those reasons that ALL eyewitnesses were mistaken.

As for other "evidence" such as the radar contacts you mentioned, no one has ever proved conclusively that a radar contact has been connected with a UFO. There are many claims of such, but not one stands up when looked at closely. Radars are capable of generating false returns, it's as simple as that.

Again, what are your standards for "evidence"? The actual craft in hand by the FAA? Yes radar can generate false returns. But when you combine radar returns with civilian testimony of craft seen in the sky with pilots who chased the UFO only to have it fly away at 2000 mph, the amount of evidence starts to get overwhelming.

Even in a court of law, witness testimony has never been used to convict someone. Some how this important "little" fact seems to have escaped most of the UFO community.

You are flat out wrong here. Eyewitness testimony is enough to convict someone in a court of law. If you don't believe that I suggest you watch the video Don't Talk to the Police by law professor James Duane.


You also don't seem to understand the peer review process. Just because an article is posted in a science journal doesn't mean it can't have been made up. Numerous scientists have been caught fudging data in an effort to get published.

The peer review process is about replicating supposed experiments to see if one gets the supposed results.

I find it interesting that you mentioned Bob Lazar but not Mark McCandlish. I made a specific point of saying Lazar's testimony can't be peer reviewed, there is no way to determine if he is lying and even if he isn't no way to replicate the experiment.

McCandlish on the other hand gave very specific testimony about the composition of the craft (an electromagnetic solenoid coil, 18' in diameter, 450 to 800 turns; a 9' diameter flywheel above the coil; 1' thick flat parallel plate capacitors on the bottom) that enables us to peer review his testimony.

It enables us to create that object and see if it moves. Sure a lot of variables are missing, but a hell of a lot are there.

In point of fact if one looks at the alcubierre warp drive concept, combines it with EHT and its gravity/expansion force gravitophoton pairs, it is clear that the ARV's design could create a dent and hill in spacetime if those theories are correct. Study the ARV and theories, the truth is out there.

[edit on 20-1-2010 by Bobbox1980]

I know how you feel as I'm sure we all do. Weeding out through the fake info does become annoying but it's just a sad fact that we're surrounded by liars. People will lie for various reasons. No matter what scene you enter though, there will always be liars. It's just a sad fact.

reply to post by defenestrator

Do you discount all eye-witness testimony, really? Let's hope you never have to go to court as the victim of a crime where there are only eyewitnesses to corroborate your story of who the criminal was, and what happened. By your own standards, it seems, nothing is true nor can it be proven by mere eyeball witnessing thereof.

No. I would not discount all eye-witness testimony. I never said that, but more weight can sometimes be attached to credible witness that are involved in day to day incidents on the ground, and in combination with physical evidence to bolster the witness testimony, that can be used to convict someone.

In the case of UFOs, where someone has seen something unusual in the sky, much less weight can be attached to claims of improbable characteristics because it's very easy for anyone to fall into the trap of not realizing their own limitations, and also assume that they are capable of identifying all phenomena even in unusual situations.

I am an eyewitness to several flying objects I cannot explain, only one time, in broad daylight with several family and close friends standing right there with me. We all saw the same thing, and we all agreed it was not of terrestrial origin, no stinking way. None of us are scientists, or pilots, or qualified to make this determination in the sense of credentials, but I'm telling you without reservation, if you had seen what we saw there would be no doubt left for you. Take that as you will, it is only my personal experience.

As I explained before, in situations where there are few visual cues (typical of objects seen in the sky), our brains are easily fooled into believing things we are seeing are seemingly impossible for our preconceived ideas of what objects should look like and how they should behave.

Optical illusions are common place under these situations.

»Optical illusion« sounds pejorative, as if exposing a malfunction of the visual system. Rather, I view these phenomena as bringing out particular good adaptations of our visual system to standard viewing situations. These adaptations are »hard-wired« in our brains, and thus under some artificial manipulations can cause inappropriate interpretations of the visual scene. As Purkinje put it: »Illusions of the senses tell us the truth about perception« (cited by Teuber 1960).

Source: www.michaelbach.de

Please click on the above link and see how easy it is for our visual senses to be mislead... Try a few examples - there are many there.

Illusions are actually everywhere, and most people do not realize this...

Many common perceptions involve illusions although people are not aware of it. That is, much of what we perceive does not correspond to the stimulation of our sense organs. Thus, for example, we do not see a person who is walking away from us as getting smaller and smaller, even though the image in our eyes rapidly decreases in size. We also get the illusion of depth in paintings, stereoscopes and holographs, even though these are presented to us on two-dimensional surfaces. Another good example of an illusion which we simply take for granted is the motion picture. Actually there are two illusions involved when we go to see a movie. The first is that there is really nothing moving as we experience the film. That is not quite correct. What is moving is a series of still photographs on a reel of film. Each is exposed for only a very short time and our eyes and brain to not see the separate still shots but see figures on the screen moving quite naturally. The second part of the movie illusion is the sound. When an actor speaks we fully accept that the words are coming from his or her mouth. The fact is that the sounds are actually coming from speakers well off to the side of the screen and possibly even in back of us. Yet as the actor walks across the scene we accept that the words are coming from his or her mouth from a different spot on the screen—a misperception, and therefore an illusion.

Perception may also be distorted in other ways. One such distortion results from what is called selective perception. Selective perception is a result of personal factors on perception. What a person perceives often reflects that person's past learning and present state of mind, as well as what is actually "out there." A Republican and a Democrat who listen to the same political speech will "hear" and remember different things. If you ask them about it afterwards, it may be hard to believe they listened to the same speech.

Source: sandlotscience.com

Take note, and re-read that last paragraph a couple of times, as it has implications for those who already held some kind of a stance on the matter and had their perceptions colored by previous events that might have been heard about in the past - ie those of us who heard/read the stories of Roswell, or seen a piece on the TV about unexplained cases, and thought that perhaps there is something to it... "I just need to see something I can't explain and then I'll believe, heck yeah!"

The only problem is that you are assuming that you can identify and therefore explain all things under all situations, even when your brain is feeding you bad/misleading information on things like, distance, size, speed, and motion, and no one can... although some know the pitfalls better than others.

No one is saying there is anything wrong with you (or your family) or that you are seeing things that were not there, but it is possible for several people to make the same mistakes when identifying objects under unfamiliar circumstances, and the sky counts in the respect.

You did say that none of you had any particular experience, and that, you must understand that makes you even more prone to misidentifying or making assumptions when observing under such circumstances, when even experienced observers who know the pitfalls can be caught out.

Did you know that from a distance it's very difficult if not impossible to determine if an object is solid or not, or would you know what a point meteor looks like, or a sprite, or a sundog looks like if you saw it? Be honest, had you even heard of any of those before (or before you came to ATS)?

My stance on the matter is very well summed up by what this amateur astronomer has to say on the subject here. I have also spent countless hours observing the sky, as have many other amateur astronomers, and we all say the same thing: "It's only those who have little or no experience" that see UFOs.

I should also add that I have seen many objects of an extraterrestrial nature in our atmosphere, and some that would make most people's jaws drop, so much so that they would have trouble believing what they saw was a perfectly natural and explainable phenomena (without using "ET"). So saying that all UFOs are terrestrial, is something I would never imply.

I'm not the Andromedan Ambassador to Sector 12 or anything crazy, I just saw some things in the sky once that made me a believer, and I can never go back.

Well that is where believers and true open minded skeptics (like myself) differ... I can accept that there may be a small chance that ETs may have visited us, but you can't accept that there is even a tiny possibility that you could have been mistaken? Even though there is much evidence to show that many untrained observers are easily mistaken?

Care to share any details about this sighting and why it was so baffling to you? (please start another thread or link to an existing one so we can stay on topic here)

I think you have erred on the side of being too skeptical without examining all of the evidence, or at least a sufficient body of reasonable evidence.

On the contrary, I spent many years looking at UFO evidence and cases (a couple even before I signed up here). In the end most cases can be shown to be due to mundane phenomena being misidentified, and full of holes when it comes to the way evidence has been gathered or the way statements have been taken.

Unlike yourself, I have also taken the trouble to learn about the science behind many of the more unusual phenomena that can be seen in the sky, and learned both through my own experience, and through the writings of others as much as I could about what we see and how we see it.

I don't claim to be an expert by any means, but I do know without a shadow of a doubt that most (if not all) of existing UFO "evidence" has fatal flaws because of the reasons I have explained above.

I also do not think that I have erred on the side of being too skeptical - real evidence, if any is ever found, will speak for itself, and it will be noticed by all.

If you like, you can dig a little deeper, and check that everything I have posted above is factual and honest (which it is), or you can remain ignorant of all the other possibilities out there that might help you actually explain what you saw.

If you try "connecting the dots" together in a logical manner, given the info I have shared here, you will see that it all fits together and makes as much, if not allot more sense than the ET hypothesis.


[edit on 21-1-2010 by C.H.U.D.]

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


very well said, C.H.U.D.

Indeed, the UFO field is full of subjectivity and confusion on one side, and people which take advantages from this, on the other side. The genuine part is very small. Therefore, for outside people, is easy to characterize the UFO field as not being something so serious.




[edit on 21/1/10 by depthoffield]

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


If you don't mind me asking, what is "real" evidence of UFOs in your mind?

What credence do you give to Capt Edward J Ruppelt who was Chief of Project Bluebook.

Here are a couple of his quotes which can be read on Karl 12's thread Free E-Book ~ The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects by Captain Edward J. Ruppelt.

Of these UFO reports,the radar/visual reports are the most convincing. When a ground radar picks up a UFO target and a ground observer sees a light where the radar target is located,then a jet interceptor is scrambled to intercept the UFO and the pilot also sees the lights and gets a radar lock only to have the UFO almost impudently outdistance him,there is no simple answer.

Every time I get skeptical, I think of the other reports made by experienced pilots and radar operators, scientists, and other people who know what they are looking at. These reports were thoroughly investigated and they are still unknowns.
We have no aircraft on this earth that can at will so handily outdistance our latest jets... The pilots, radar specialists, generals, industrialists, scientists, and the man on the street who have told me, I wouldn't have believed it either if I hadn't seen it myself, knew what they were talking about. Maybe the Earth is being visited by interplanetary space ships.
When four college professors, a geologist, a chemist, a physicist, and a petroleum engineer report seeing the same UFOs on fourteen different occasions, the event can be classified as, at least, unusual. Add the fact that hundreds of other people saw these UFOs and that they were photographed, and the story gets even better. Add a few more facts, that these UFOs were picked up on radar and that a few people got a close look at one of them, and the story begins to convince even the most ardent skeptic.

...and it was up to them to tell us if they (UFOs) were real---some type of vehicle flying through our atmosphere. If they were real,then they would have to be spacecraft because no one at the meeting gave a second thought to the possibility that the UFOs might be a super secret U.S. aircraft or a Soviet development. The scientists knew everything that was going on in the U.S. and they knew that no country in the world had developed their technology far enough to build such a craft that would perform as the UFOs were reported to do.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.


CHUD, I appreciate your post, skepticism, and reasoning. Though you have assumed I haven't learned the science relative to these phenomena, and in that case you are mistaken. I only meant to indicate I don't have any actual credentials in the fields of astronomy, astrophysics, physics in general, etc.
I have, all my life, been an aircraft enthusiast, and as for the natural phenomena that you indicated, I was well aware of them at least a decade before ATS existed. In the same way I have incorrectly made assumptions about your position, you have mis-assumed mine. You are clearly a bright individual with well-honed reasoning skills, and I have no quarrel with you.

If I had not seen that which I did, then I would be right there with you in remaining highly skeptical on the subject of otherworldly craft in the skies. Is there a chance, that all 9 of us were mistaken? Surely, but it does nothing to sway my opinion we saw, nor does it sway the others involved. Truly, if you had been there, I believe all doubt would be erased for you, as well. I realize that it means very little for me to say that, but I'm saying it anyway.
Stay skeptical, but open, and maybe one day your opinion will change.

On the original subject of the thread, I am frustrated in the same way as the OP, there is so much charlatanism and disinformation that this subject remains nearly impenetrable. I will read the information in the links you posted and weigh it against my own experience, I assure you.
I lurk on ATS quite a bit, but don't even sign in most times, so I do not have the requisite posts on my account to create a thread of my own yet. When I have reached 20 posts (which should be very soon, I think) I will relate my experience in full. I have already written it out, but tried to post it yesterday and the system told me I was still too much of a newb to do so.

Anyway, cheers.
I'm going to go make some posts on subjects that DO have incontrovertible evidence to support them, such as the Global Warming scam, international banking cabal, and Global Government. (all intertwined, of course)
Peace, to you and yours.

P.S. The last link in your post is dead.


[edit on 1/21/2010 by defenestrator]

reply to post by Bobbox1980

I never said we must have been visited.

Really?

Then what did you mean by this? (bolding added by me)

There have been photos of UFOs in the sky from before we could fly. This tells me we have been visited and possibly still are being visited by aliens though i think modern UFOs are mostly U.S. government craft.

And again?

Looking at all of the evidence out there, my educated guess, if I had to choose between have we or have we not been visited, I would say yes.

But then you say:

No we obviously do not have solid tangible proof of aliens coming here but...

So we don't have any actual proof (you admit), yet you still believe that we have been visited?

when looking at all the evidence and having to decide one way or the other, I think the answer is yes. That you don't actually surprises me.

I'm saying that "0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 does not equal 1"

You're saying:

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + (maybe1 but more likely 0) = 1

Well, that is not how real science works.

There may well be cases that we can't find an obvious answer, but I have not seen one yet which could only have an ET based explanation. Lots of "possibles" does not equal "it must be so".

If there was a real "smoking gun" in all the cases up till now, we would have found it, and it would be constantly waved in all the skeptics faces as the one "that can have no other rational explanation other than ETs". But there is no case like that...

Are you a debunker? A disinfo agent? A professional cynic?

No, and everything I have posted can be checked for factual content, if you are so inclined.

As I said in my previous reply, I'm an astronomer and an astrophotographer primarily. My own previous sightings, which I could not explain at the time drew me here in the search for "alternative" explanations, and having spent some time here and looked at the subject from all angles, the penny dropped.

The answers were right under my nose all along, but as they say "I couldn't see the trees for the woods".

I'm not saying I have all the answers, far from it, but the evidence that people routinely misidentify the most mundane objects/phenomena is overwhelming on this forum.

I can present numerous examples where people swear blind that something they saw is not something, when in fact it is, like these replies that were all posted in response to seeing footage of aircraft-contrails for example:

url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread277643/pg1#pid3111544]post by jefferrari[/url]
A strange object crashed over Finland last week, which some say is so big that it must be of extraterrestrial origin. The video below shows this massive object as it crashes through the atmosphere above Finland in a fearsome wave of fire & debris. To big for space junk, but possibly a meteor - another possibility is that this is a UFO crash. Evidence of military action against UFOs is apparent on NASA mission STS-48 and it is possible that a similar event has occurred here.

post by shadow_soldier1975
just my 2 cents...but it's definitly NOT a contrail....Contrails actually tend to last for a certain length of time as an aircraft moves along. You can sometimes still see a contrail up to 30 minutes AFTER the plane is long gone, and it begins to disapate. In this video there is NO visable trail except for the flames...that is NO reflection...

post by Lightmare
Sorry but I just don't think it was a jet plane. We've all seen plenty of jet planes during our life time and I have never seen anything like that...ever. Not even the other video of the plane that emitted flames came close the videos of this "fire in the sky" phenomenon.

post by warrenb
Interesting daytime/evening fireball video.

Perhaps it is related to the Perseid meteor showers?

As you can see from the above examples, an "obvious" and relatively mundane phenomena can either not be identified, or others think is something completely other than what it actually is!

It does not follow from those reasons that ALL eyewitnesses were mistaken.

Nor does it follow that any are necessarily right when making unusual claims, under difficult circumstances.

You are flat out wrong here. Eyewitness testimony is enough to convict someone in a court of law. If you don't believe that I suggest you watch the video Don't Talk to the Police by law professor James Duane.

I covered that in my reply to defenestrator above.

If you can show me a single case where eyewitness testimony alone has been used to convict someone, then please share...

You also don't seem to understand the peer review process.

Based on?

Just because an article is posted in a science journal doesn't mean it can't have been made up.

Straw man...

The peer review process is about replicating supposed experiments to see if one gets the supposed results.

Did you mean to say Reproducibility or repeatability? Either way, these are not part of the peer review process as you suggested they were

Replication has a completely different meaning that does not make any real sense in this context!

peer review
 
–noun
evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in the same occupation, profession, or industry.

Source: dictionary.reference.com

Procedure
In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

Source: wikipedia.org

McCandlish on the other hand gave very specific testimony about the composition of the craft (an electromagnetic solenoid coil, 18' in diameter, 450 to 800 turns; a 9' diameter flywheel above the coil; 1' thick flat parallel plate capacitors on the bottom) that enables us to peer review his testimony.

In that case you can point me to a peer reviewed paper on this subject?

reply to post by Bobbox1980

If you don't mind me asking, what is "real" evidence of UFOs in your mind?

It would have to be testable within the framework of the scientific method.

What credence do you give to Capt Edward J Ruppelt who was Chief of Project Bluebook.

I would have to say, a little more than most people, but then he is also quoted as saying this:

post by IsaacKoi

During the past four years the most frequent question I've been asked is: "What do you personally think? Do unidentified flying objects exist, or don't they?"

I'm positive they don't.

I was very skeptical when I finished my tour of active duty with the
Air Force and left Project Blue Book in 1953, but now I'm convinced.
(Ruppelt - Chapter 20 of revised edition)

Hey bro, I think I found what you're looking for.

reply to post by defenestrator

I have, all my life, been an aircraft enthusiast, and as for the natural phenomena that you indicated, I was well aware of them at least a decade before ATS existed.

Fair play. I have no reason to doubt that you were aware of the phenomena I mentioned, but you seem to have missed the one crucial piece of the puzzle that affects all phenomena that we "see": ie. that our brain processes and makes assumptions that can be wrong.

Also, there is a world of difference between knowing that something exists, and having a true understanding of how it works, and therefore an understanding of how that phenomena might appear under a verity of conditions.

The point I'm making here is that we live in a world where many different sets of conditions can arise, and sometimes novel/unique combinations can come together that can throw even very proficient and knowledgeable observers. People can spend decades learning about the sky and atmospheric phenomena and still not know it all, and indeed there are still new phenomena being discovered as well as things that we still do not understand. Any of us can be mistaken...

Is there a chance, that all 9 of us were mistaken?

Not only a chance, but it is actually very likely, as I have demonstrated in my previous posts!


PS. Thanks for pointing out the dead link (fixed now), and your reply.

reply to post by C.H.U.D.

So we don't have any actual proof (you admit), yet you still believe that we have been visited?

We do not have physical tangible proof in the form of a solid UFO to examine. When looking at all the eyewitness testimony, combined with radar returns, pilot sightings, JANAP 146E regulations on UFO sightings, and a deliberate attempt by the government to suppress the UFO phenomenon including co-opting the most trusted man in America Walter Cronkite as addressed by Terry Hansen in Karl 12's thread News Media Complicity and UFOs with Terry Hansen, I think that even though the trial is not yet complete, my opinion at this stage of the trial is that aliens have visited us and the U.S. government has craft of their own.

McCandlish on the other hand gave very specific testimony about the composition of the craft (an electromagnetic solenoid coil, 18' in diameter, 450 to 800 turns; a 9' diameter flywheel above the coil; 1' thick flat parallel plate capacitors on the bottom) that enables us to peer review his testimony.

In that case you can point me to a peer reviewed paper on this subject?

I can point you to his testimony for the Disclosure Project:
This site has Mark McCandlish's testimony on one page
This is a sketch of the craft

I got the information for the 9' diameter of the flywheel from an email I sent to McCandlish asking about the flywheel since he doesn't mention it much in his testimony. The 18' diameter of the electromagnetic solenoid coil was an estimate I made based on the 24' diameter of the craft at it's base.

The 450 to 800 turns was an educated extrapolation I made based on McCandlish's testimony that the coil was 9" in height and 18" deep with 15 to 20 stacked layers of copper coils. 15-20 rows in 9" ergo 30-40 columns in 18" and 450-800 total turns.


If Extended Heim Theory (here's a basic primer and here's the site of the German team that won an award on their EHT work from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2004) is correct about additional fundamental forces existing including gravitophotons, and the alcubierre warp drive concept is valid then the physical design of the ARV as reported by McCandlish would create a dent in spacetime at the flywheel due to absorption of gravitational force gravitophotons by protons in the flywheel and create a hill in spacetime due to the absorption of quintessence expansion force gravitophotons (negative energy density) by electrons on the capacitor plates at the bottom of the craft. This would cause the ARV to free fall down spacetime.

The German EHT team has been calling for and trying to get funding for an experiment using a superconducting coil with 2500 turns, 1000 Amps, with a flywheel or rotating ring above the superconducting electromagnetic coil spinning with an outer surface speed of about 250 meters/sec.

I should not have been the first to make this correlation between EHT, the alcubierre warp drive, and the McCandlish ARV. Unfortunately the UFO scene drowns out testable stories like this one with countless untestable ones.

There is no such thing as a fake picture of a UFO. If the object is unidentified then how can it be a fake? There are many pictures of fake spaceships.

reply to post by earthdude

A photo that was altered to show something in the air that was not there and that cannot be identified would be a fake UFO photo.