• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Alien Technology

Free episodes:

Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
So, readers and listeners, do you truly think that we have been struggling for years to get a handle on the technology from recovered alien craft? Are we even now reverse engineering advanced propulsion systems and testing them at, say, Area 51? Or is this just a load of nonsense.

It's a subject we continue to explore on The Paracast and your comments are welcome.
 
I definitely think that we're trying to understand alien technology, but I'm not sure if we've actually reverse engineered anything. It's possible that their propulsion systems are so far ahead of anything we have that it's beyond our realm of comprehension. I heard Stanton Friedman say in an interview that it'd be like giving Christopher Columbus a nuclear submarine. Even if he had an unlimited budget, he couldn't build another one.

However, I do think that knowing things like anti gravity and fast space travel are possible, makes us double our efforts to figure out how it's all done.

Anyway, that's my few cents.
 
Lets take a look at some 'too detailed to be fake' information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Adv-X Planes

-the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber
-the Aurora
-Lockheed-Martin's X-33A
-Boeing and Airbus Industries? Nautilus
-the TR3-A Pumpkinseed
-the TR3-B Triangle
-Northrop's Great Pumpkin disc
-Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical's XH-75D
-Shark antigravity helicopter
-Lockheed-Martin and Northrop's jointly-developed TAW-50 hypersonic antigravity fighter-bomber

Intro:

- The most primitive antigravity technology is electrogravitic. This involves using voltages in the millions of volts to disrupt the ambient gravitational field. This results in an 89% reduction in gravity's hold on airframes in such vehicles as the B-2 Stealth Bomber and the TR3-B Astra triangular craft. And given the considerable ambient ionization field I observed around the X-22A, it is reasonable to assume that extreme-voltage electrogravitics is also employed with these craft.

-The next level up of sophistication is magnetogravitic. This involves generating high-energy toroidal fields spun at incredible rpm?s, which also disrupts the ambient gravitational field, indeed to the extent that a counterforce to Earth's gravitational pull is generated. The early British aeronautical engineers called this dynamic counterbary. This may have been used in some earlier American saucers and prototypes, but I have only been told that the secret Nautilus spacefaring craft uses magnetic pulsing , which appears to utilize this technology.

-The third level of sophistication, that used in the more modern American antigravity craft, is direct generation and harnessing of the gravitational strong force. Such a strong-force field extends slightly beyond the atomic nucleus of Element 115, an exotic element donated by Star Visitor scientist-consultants to human scientists at S-4, a secret base south of Area 51. By amplifying that exposed gravitational strong force, and using antimatter reactor high energy, and then directing it, it is possible to lift a craft from the Earth and then change directions by vectoring the shaped antigravity force field thus generated. Important information about this third technology is available on Bob Lazar's website. (1) This information is also described on the Bob Lazar video. Lazar worked on extraterrestrial technology at Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Area 51's Site S-4. (2)


Craft:

(1) The Aurora SR-33A is a moderate-sized spacefaring vehicle.

The late National Security Council scientist Dr. Michael Wolf (4) of NSC's unacknowledged Special Studies Group subcommittee, (formerly called MJ-12), has stated that the Aurora can operate on both conventional fuel and antigravity field propulsion systems. He further stated that the Aurora can travel to the Moon.

Wolf had also disclosed to me that the U.S. has a small station on the Moon, and a tiny observation post on Mars (5). Thus I doubt that Dr. Wolf would characterize the Aurora thus, unless it was a vessel already used in making such trips. He disclosed additionally that the Aurora operates out of Area 51, (Groom Dry Lake Air Force Station), at the northeast corner of the Nellis AFB Range, north of Las Vegas, Nevada.


(2) The Lockheed-Martin X-33A military spaceplane,

is a prototype of Lockheed's other spaceplane, the single-stage-to-orbit reuseable aerospace vehicle, the National SpacePlane . Lockheed-Martin does not say too much about its winged, delta-shape X-33 VentureStar, except to say that we are building it. To be at that stage of development for its public-program SpacePlane, clearly Lockheed-Martin has already long since built prototypes, as well as an unacknowledged military version, which I have dubbed the X-33A. The ?A? suffix stands for antigravity.

Colonel Donald Ware, USAF (ret.) told me that he had recently learned from a three-star General that the VentureStar X-33 has an electrogravitics (antigravity) system on board (6). This virtually assures that the unacknowledged military antigravity version, the X-33 A, must surely also have electrogravitics on board. It is possible that what I have called the X-33A is the Aurora craft which Dr. Wolf described.


(3) The Lockheed X-22A is a two-man antigravity disc fighter.

The late Colonel Steve Wilson, USAF (ret.), stated that military astronauts trained at a secret aerospace academy separate from the regular Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, CO. These military astronauts then operate out of Beale and Vandenberg Air Force Bases, Northern California From those bases, these military astronauts regularly fly trans-atmospherically and out into space (7). One of the aerospace craft they use, Colonel Wilson reported, is the X-22A.

Another informant, ?Z?, aka ?Jesse?, who formerly worked at the NSA, told me that the Lockheed X-22A antigravity fighter disc fleet is equipped with Neutral Particle Beam directed-energy weapons, that it is capable of effecting optical as well as radar invisibility, and that it is deployable for worldwide military operations from the new U.S. Space Warfare Headquarters, located in hardened underground facilities beneath 13,528? King's Peak in the Wasatch Mountains? High Uintas Primitive (Wilderness) Area, 80 miles east of Salt Lake City (8).

Recently I also heard from an Army engineer, formerly TDY?ed to NASA, who shall remain unnamed at his request. He also confirmed that Lockheed had made the X-22A, the two-man antigravity fighter disc which I had seen test-flown in a canyon adjacent to the main Area 51 operations zone. He explained why I had seen the X-22A so nervously flown during that test flight. He said that the original X-22A had had a standard altimeter hard-wired into it, but that such an instrument would give faulty readings in the craft's antigravity field, which bends space-time. He had recommended that they instead use a gradiometer, which would function better.

Apparently his suggestion was finally taken up, since in more recent years I have seen the X-22As flying more smoothly and confidently at high altitudes over and near Area 51.

Another informant who wishes his identity kept private related operational details about military deployment of antigravity disc craft which sound like the X-22A. He reports:

?During operation Desert Storm a close relative of mine was in charge of a Marine Division right on the front. In the first days film footage and especially video-cams which a large number of G.I.s had were impounded, so they wouldn't capture any sensitive material. Iraq was pumped up and Gung-Ho, since they had well over 50,000 troops ready to charge us, [and] since we only had about 3500 they knew of, and they knew [that], because of the close proximity of troops we couldn't nuke them, so, they were assuming piece of cake. Wrong.

?Two pictures my relative confiscated from one of his officers showed:

1. a large disc-shaped craft slightly in front of our men with a high intensity beam of light emitting out of it; then,
2. where men, equipment, etc. was [had stood], there only remained dark charcoal-like spots on the desert floor. We have had this technology for quite a while.?

The described disc was clearly an antigravity, levitating, aerial-weapons platform in the U.S. arsenal. Quite possibly it was the Lockheed X-22A two-man discoid craft, the real DarkStar, of which the unmanned drone X-22 DarkStar is but an aircraft ?cover? program to disguise the existence of this manned antigravity fighter disc, the X-22A.

Further, as ?Z? noted, the real manned discs come equipped with the latest Neutral Particle Beam weapons, which take apart the target at the molecular level. Star Visitor craft do not incinerate humans. Only human military fighters are so deployed. So the above report does not deal with any extraterrestrial event.

(4) The TAW-50 is a hypersonic, antigravity space fighter-bomber.

A defense contractor with whom I have been in communication leaked to me details of this U.S. Advanced TAW-50 warcraft. Developed during the early 1990s, the capabilities of this war-bird are jaw-dropping. And the technology shows that the Defense Department did not fail to utilize what it learned combing through the wreckage of various UFO crashes.

The TAW-50 was jointly developed by the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works (Palmdale-Helendale, CA) and Northrop (undoubtedly at their undeclared Anthill facility within the Tehachapi Mountains, northwest of Lancaster, CA.) Both companies have a history of development of secret anti-gravity craft at these Mojave Desert facilities.

The TAW-50 has speed capabilities well in excess of Mach 50, a number the contractor calls ?a very conservative estimate?. Its actual speed is classified. Since Mach-1 is 1,225 kilometers per hour, (approximately 748 mph), this means that the TAW-50 is capable of moving considerably faster than 38,000 mph. In comparison, the velocity required to escape Earth's gravity is 25,000 mph. Therefore the TAW-50 is capable of going into space, and does.

The TAW-50 has a SCRAM (supersonic ramjet) propulsion system for passing through the outer atmosphere. The TAW-50 utilizes electrogravitics to maintain its own artificial gravity while in weightless space, as well as to nullify the vehicle's mass during operations. The TAW-50's power supply is provided by a small nuclear power generator that the contractor said is Normal-Inert. The contractor said that the space plane uses electromagnetoferrometric power generation by the immersion of pellets in heavy water (deuterium) and specially-designed coil superconductive magnets, which yield enormous amounts of free electrons when placed in an immersion which has been triggered into an oscillating field-state flux.

The TAW-50 has a crew of four. Nevertheless, the TAW-50 flies so fast that it requires computers to fly it. These were developed by American Computer Company, who derived them from its Valkyrie XB/9000 AI [artificial intelligence] Guidance series. They utilize a RISC Milspec Superchip. There are 180 of them in the flight control system, and 64 more in the weapons guidance system, the contractor reported.

It can carry a combined payload of glide bombs and a package of MIRV (Multiple Independently-targeted Reentry Vehicles, mil-speak for a group of intercontinental ballistic missiles), each of which can seek out and strike a different target. The MIRV pack also contains reentry-capable balloon countermeasures to make it very difficult for laser and other defensive weapons to track down where the real MIRVs are and intercept them.

The TAW-50 is armed with its own Kill Laser system, which can track and immolate SAM (Surface-to-Air missiles), STTA (Surface-To-Trans-Atmosphere missiles), ATA (Air-To- Air missiles), and ATTA (Air-To-Trans-Atmospheric missiles). The TAW-50's killer lasers can also knock down high-performance fighter interceptors. The TAW's Kill Laser is much smaller than the earlier 1980s-era SDI (Star Wars program) models, and has a miniaturized cooling core and 500 times the wattage. The contractor said it uses a spontaneous nucleonic burst to trigger the lasing [laser] effect.

In addition, the TAW-50 is armed with microsuperexplosive HyperDart missiles. These are just a little larger than ordinary aircraft cannon ammunition, but travel at hypersonic speed for up to three minutes, and have enormous explosive capability. One HyperDart can blow apart a MiG fighter anywhere within 20 feet of the HyperDart. The TAW-50 carries several hundred HyperDarts.

Because the TAW-50 is designed to operate in space, it has on board a two-day air supply. This air supply can be extended by using its scoop system and traveling into the upper atmosphere to harvest more oxygen.
The contractor did not reveal the size of the space fighter-bomber except to say, ?It's a pretty big thing.?

The performance of the TAW-50 makes it virtually impossible to defend against.

It can hide in orbit many hundreds of miles into space, orbiting at times at 22,000 mph.

Then, without warning, it can dive straight down through the atmosphere at over 38,000 miles per hour on an 80-degree attack vector, reverse direction within 150 feet of the ground with very little loss of motion and without a glide turn, and almost instantly go vertically straight up at over 38,000 mph until long after it leaves the atmosphere and resumes orbiting in space.

The contractor noted, ?Those [electro-] gravitics allow it to change its mass to almost nothing in a moment, and reverse direction in a second, increase its acceleration to so many times G [Earth's gravity] it's not funny, yet they are able to nearly nullify the G-force on the pilots. They [the electrogravitics] are fourth-generation, with the ability to bring it to a complete standstill in under 2 milliseconds, if need be, without crushing the pilots, and keep it there for quite some time.? The contractor notes, ?It's far too fast for tracking radars.? ?And,? he adds, ?what military aims its radars straight up??

The TAW-50 can be refueled and rearmed in orbit by docking with the secret undeclared Military Space Station that is in orbit (12) The entire refueling and rearming procedure takes under 10 minutes. Who mans the gas pumps? Military astronauts trained at the Secret Air Force Academy, located in the hills immediately west of the official Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, CO. These military astronauts rotate duty by traveling to and from Vandenberg Air Force Base on other military antigravity vehicles (13).

The Cape Canaveral Space Shuttles have carried the arming platforms (?classified Defense Department payloads?) up to the secret Military Space Station. The contractor reported that with a few extra tanks of LOX (liquid oxygen), the TAW-50 could fly to the Moon and back.

As of 2002, the U.S. has 20 TAW-50s in its arsenal. But, as the contractor commented, ?You could take out an entire nation in under 10 days with only 10 of these, doing three attacks a day. One can wipe out an entire city the size of suburban Cleveland in a single attack without having to use any nukes at all.?

The electrogravitics for the TAW-50 was produced by GE Radionics.

Pratt & Whitney designed the SCRAM atmospheric penetrator technology.

American Computer Company created the artificial-intelligence supercomputers.

The contractor said he could not tell me anything else. And it was clear he did not want his name used. So, this is what is known.

Conclusion:
Concious awarness, intelligence and deciding for yourself concludes the facts without having to express my own opinion. Your all smart people so if you dismiss 'ALL' the evidence, your quiet likely a retard.. (wasnt trying to be funny)
 
Gene Steinberg said:
So, readers and listeners, do you truly think that we have been struggling for years to get a handle on the technology from recovered alien craft? Are we even now reverse engineering advanced propulsion systems and testing them at, say, Area 51? Or is this just a load of nonsense.

It's a subject we continue to explore on The Paracast and your comments are welcome.

Have you read "The Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook? There's a guy I would like to hear on your program.
My experience with engineering, testing, military hardware and bureaucracy, and with human beings in general tells me that the mysterious things we see flying around are actually terrestrial in origin. I think there are holes in the Quantum/Relativity paradigm that go back to 1918's eclipse verification of Einstein, and there are a lot more possibilities in the energy spectrums than the scientific community wants to think about, let alone teach.
(more on this at www.infinite-energy.com)
For example, the Belgium Triangle sightings, my reading of the transcript tells me a couple of things: first, that they were looking for something lost in the countryside that was very important. It's not like some aliens would be looking for their car keys or something.
second, it isn't easy to tell the difference between a search mode and a track mode on modern fire-control radar systems. The behavior of 'breaking radar lock' smacks of terrestrial specialist knowledge. An alien might have a fuzzbuster, but they don't necessarily know the various signals and modes. A secret terrestrial craft would make damn sure that they aren't risking getting shot down by their own hardware.

As for the reasons 'why' anyone with this valuable technology (antigravity, free energy) would keep it from the public, there are a couple of parapolitical reasons. First, you can't charge money for free energy, at least not on a metered, wired, indebtedness basis. Second, if you have something like that, you want to insert it into the right market timing point. That would be when people are paying just as much as they can possibly pay for energy. For example, after a few wars; hurricanes are a bonus to these people.
(not to mention that they WANT the population to die off first, so that their selected 'chosen ones' will have a more luxurious lifestyle)
I just started downloading and listening. Great shows. I think you should take Sean David Morton semi-seriously, but throw out his future prediction stuff. If for no other reason, he says the economic collapse is going to be in 2007, while the election crisis would be in 2008. I think the current rate of money printing, housing mesa, and fuel prices will bring about economic disaster THIS fall, and the election in 2008 is going to be a moot point in a country filled with roving gangs of starving citizens, most of which have guns. We don't have family cows in the back shed to feed the unemployed hobo anymore, and the moder farm runs on oil. Not coal, not horse manure, but oil, brought in by trucks which are part of businesses dependent on the consumption economy, which is floating on a cesspool of fiat money right now.
Speaking of Infinite Energy magazine earlier; are you familiar with the murder of it's publisher, Eugene Mallove? The conspiracies never end at the Company.
There will be only two sides to the next revolution: are you Corporatist or Localist?
 
Hi

It's all very well discussing whether we are reverse engineering alien technology, however, discussions of this type are generally concerned with the minutae of things. Perhaps a couple of programmes concerning who we are in the greater scheme of things might be appropriate.

Comologists are reasonably consistant regarding the big bang (even though 94% of our perceived universe is missing), thereby leaving us with three important events, namely:

1. When life started on our planet. It appears to me that it happened all over the place, all at the same time. Even allowing for plate techtonics, this is improbable, unless there is a layer of organisms circulating along the glactic plane. Our sun bobs up and down through this plane every 32 million years. We know, from the equipment on a previous probe, brought back from the moon, that earthly organisms can survive in space. We know that radiation from a star can blow away bits of a planet's atmosphere. So, life, floating about on the galactic plane is hardly improbable. So, life, starting everywhere at the same time is not improbable. It would only have to be the first occasion that the solar system passed through the galactic plane and the earth's atmosphere was appropriate for the survival and prosperity of the organisms involved. I have no idea who, or what type of geologist/biologist you could interview about this topic, but it would surely create an interesting programme.

2. When did the light come on for the human race? It's all very well to state that we are the prince of creation, as far as this planet is concerned. However, there has to be a point when humanity broke away from the rest of the creatures of evolution. This is an important milestone. I suspect it must be whenever humanity realised that there has to be a spiritual side to existence. Presumably, evidence of this would exist in archealogy, namely, funeral goods, etc. Perhaps a programme about this with an appropriate expert could be possible. Modern DNA tracing has now identified an Eve (approx 160,000 years ago) and an Adam (approx 80,000 years ago). At the time of Adam, Toba had exploded and the human race was reduced to numbers so small that an evolutionary jump could be made in just a few generations.

3. Mankind makes contact with other intelligent beings. Well, you are already making programmes concerning this. However, none have really taken the above two topics into account. They are generally concerned with who is lying to who about it. Mankind has been around for a while now, we are not just a product of the technology of the last 60 years. A particular slant on this has arisen in my mind. I downloaded a copy of the Sr Steven Greer's press conference in 2001. One of the witnesses referred to some of the alien beings as being similar in appearence to ourselves. The probability of evolution running it's course on another planet and ending up with another species of human is so preposterous that it's not worth even contemplating. So, are we the offspring of them, or are they the offspring of us? Makes you think, doesn't it? A programme about that topic would be interesting.

Woody
 
sharp said:
.... Then, without warning, it can dive straight down through the atmosphere at over 38,000 miles per hour on an 80-degree attack vector, reverse direction within 150 feet of the ground with very little loss of motion and without a glide turn, and almost instantly go vertically straight up at over 38,000 mph until long after it leaves the atmosphere and resumes orbiting in space.

The contractor noted, ?Those [electro-] gravitics allow it to change its mass to almost nothing in a moment, and reverse direction in a second, increase its acceleration to so many times G [Earth's gravity] it's not funny, yet they are able to nearly nullify the G-force on the pilots. They [the electrogravitics] are fourth-generation, with the ability to bring it to a complete standstill in under 2 milliseconds, if need be, without crushing the pilots, and keep it there for quite some time.? The contractor notes, ?It's far too fast for tracking radars.? ?And,? he adds, ?what military aims its radars straight up?? ...

Cancelling out 'weight' is one thing, but cancelling out mass? These things would have inertia, not from gravity but from their momentum... We must be dealing with something exotic if it can cancel out "mass". Then again, what do I know about Alient Technology? ;D
 
Raccoon said:
Cancelling out 'weight' is one thing, but cancelling out mass? These things would have inertia, not from gravity but from their momentum... We must be dealing with something exotic if it can cancel out "mass". Then again, what do I know about Alient Technology? ;D
Haisch/Rueda/Puthoff (sp?) have a good paper on this (if you want to stumble through the math), but the general idea is that inertia comes from the relationship between charges and the STC (spacetime continuum). Mathematically, it means that if you are smart enough, you can (kinda, maybe, sorta, if you're lucky) cancel out inertia.
Big 'if' for the current paradigm.
Personally, I find it easier to believe in the aether. It works better on the farm, anyway.
 
sharp said:
Lets take a look at some 'too detailed to be fake' information.

...And given the considerable ambient ionization field I observed around the X-22A, it is reasonable to assume that extreme-voltage electrogravitics is also employed with these craft.


but I have only been told that the secret Nautilus spacefaring craft uses magnetic pulsing , which appears to utilize this technology.

Wolf had also disclosed to me that the U.S. has a small station on the Moon, and a tiny observation post on Mars

Colonel Donald Ware, USAF (ret.) told me that he had recently learned from a three-star General that the VentureStar X-33 has an electrogravitics (antigravity) system on board

A defense contractor with whom I have been in communication leaked to me details of this U.S. Advanced TAW-50 warcraft


Another informant, ?Z?, aka ?Jesse?, who formerly worked at the NSA, told me that the Lockheed X-22A antigravity fighter disc fleet is equipped with Neutral Particle Beam directed-energy weapons

Recently I also heard from an Army engineer, formerly TDY?ed to NASA, who shall remain unnamed at his request. He also confirmed that Lockheed had made the X-22A,

Two pictures my relative confiscated from one of his officers showed:

1. a large disc-shaped craft slightly in front of our men with a high intensity beam of light emitting out of it; then,
2. where men, equipment, etc. was [had stood], there only remained dark charcoal-like spots on the desert floor. We have had this technology for quite a while.?

***

Alright, two questions:

Question 1: And you are...?
Question 2: How about posting those photos online, so we can all have a look at them?
 
Gene Steinberg said:
So, readers and listeners, do you truly think that we have been struggling for years to get a handle on the technology from recovered alien craft? Are we even now reverse engineering advanced propulsion systems and testing them at, say, Area 51? Or is this just a load of nonsense.

It's a subject we continue to explore on The Paracast and your comments are welcome.



I'm not convinced either way yet as for actually having recovered wreckage etc.


I do think that speculation within ufology, eye witness testimony, photos and vid etc. has influenced our technology. Lore, and theories alone can influence the minds of engineers. It need not be real to do so.
 
A.LeClair said:
I'm not convinced either way yet as for actually having recovered wreckage etc.


I do think that speculation within ufology, eye witness testimony, photos and vid etc. has influenced our technology. Lore, and theories alone can influence the minds of engineers. It need not be real to do so.

I agree. Such as the previous email in this thread...The one with the technically impressive list of reverse engineered US technology...It can be real, or, it could be coming frm the mind of a very intelligent, saavy, and creative engineer...With way too much time on their hands. (I'm still waiting for him to identify himself and provide those photos...That would take this thread into a new direction for sure...)

We have a great deal of circumstantial evidence that has developed (don't ask me to list them here, it's too early in the morning here on the West coast), primarily testimonials, photos, videos, I suppose some trace evidence, etc.

That said, what circumstantial evidence we do have, still doesn't prove reverse engineering of ET craft. What it does, at this point, is simply aid in rendering a conclusion that the UFO phenomenon is a very real thing, it is a reality.

So saying, that "it is real." is one thing. But answering the question "what is it?", well that's something very different. Connecting the dots from the UFO reality, to reverse engineering, is a giant leap that I'm not yet prepared to make.

But I'll certainly entertain it as a possibility!

I think Gene and David got it right...We don't know what IT is...But we can, at least, render solid conclusions about what IT is NOT, and then go from there.
 
tomlevine1 said:
That said, what circumstantial evidence we do have, still doesn't prove reverse engineering of ET craft. What it does, at this point, is simply aid in rendering a conclusion that the UFO phenomenon is a very real thing, it is a reality.

So saying, that "it is real." is one thing. But answering the question "what is it?", well that's something very different. Connecting the dots from the UFO reality, to reverse engineering, is a giant leap that I'm not yet prepared to make.

Very well said.
Someone else mentioned that 94% of the predicted universe from the Big Bang is missing (dark matter stuff, supposedly, based upon current theories of gravitation). If we consider that what that really represents is that we don't know 94% of how the universe works, but maybe someone does and they ain't tellin' US, then the possibility of what things are blends into being more likely terrestrial sources that have managed very well to maintain a secret system of development (or that 94% of the rest of the inhabitable planets have figured out FTL travel and we haven't been told about it).
Think of the Manhattan project or the SR-71 as your standard 'Secrets Keeping System', and this cadre of development is the Six Sigma version; an order of magnitude more refined at keeping the riff raff in the dark.
Considering that people don't want to leave their comfort zone, this can't be too hard to maintain: just take the little leaky bits and give them to someone like 'he who shall not be mentioned', and voila! instant UFO attachment and the newspeople don't touch it.

Meanwhile, we teach Johnny to read the standard textbooks and to go to the standard schools teaching him to solve the same problems that everyone else is solving and not to color outside the lines if he wants to get that football scholarship.

TTFN,
AG
 
Meanwhile, we teach Johnny to read the standard textbooks and to go to the standard schools teaching him to solve the same problems that everyone else is solving and not to color outside the lines if he wants to get that football scholarship.


The statement reminds me of a saying, "School teaches what to think, not HOW to think".
 
When I find the time, I am going to look into "SHARP"s post a little bit further. he's got me intrigued. I think some of what he got, came from forum postings at abovetopsecret.com, but who knows...Maybe he's the one that posted them there...
 
sharp said:
(4) The TAW-50 is a hypersonic, antigravity space fighter-bomber.

A defense contractor with whom I have been in communication...
Conclusion:
Concious awarness, intelligence and deciding for yourself concludes the facts without having to express my own opinion. Your all smart people so if you dismiss 'ALL' the evidence, your quiet likely a retard.. (wasnt trying to be funny)


Well, folks, I think I can shed a little bit of light on the poster called "sharp", and his post on this thread.

If you go HERE, you will find almost the EXACT wording with regards to the testimony of the alleged "TAW-50". This link documents a description from Dr. Boylans website, entitled "Defense Contractor Leaks Details of a U.S. antigravitic space fighter-bomber, the Advanced TAW-50". It is dated 4-18-05.

So a couple things can be gleaned here. First, the poster "SHARP" is either Dr. Boylan, or he is a plagiarist, or he is simply a UFO enthusiast who posted his own personal internet-based research about the subject, in an effort to share his information with us in support of his conclusion (I think it's probably the latter).

So, if it's Dr. Boylan, please come forward and reveal yourself. If its a plagiarist, please come forward and admit your wrong-doing. If, on the other hand, it is an overzealous UFO enthusiast, then I have this to say:

Sir, I am dismissing your evidence, because you incorrectly provided me with other peoples findings and research, as if it was your own. Whether or not this information is true, it is provided erroneously in the first person, misleading the rest of us into thinking that you are something for which your are not.

That said, personally, I don't think I'm a retard. :mad:

I do think that the incorrect grammatical usage and spelling errors in the conclusions section of your post, which is likely your only original material posted here, is rather humorous. So, while you were trying NOT to be funny, you actually were, sir. I am in fact laughing at your expense. :p

That was fun. Folks, am I being too harsh on the guy?
 
You read all of Sparks' stuff? I didn't make it too far into it before the play-pretend-insider demeanor got to me. I thought it looked familiar, but I would have guess it came from Lear. Even though it was much tamer than much of what Lear would write.
 
A.LeClair said:
You read all of Sparks' stuff? I didn't make it too far into it before the play-pretend-insider demeanor got to me. I thought it looked familiar, but I would have guess it came from Lear. Even though it was much tamer than much of what Lear would write.

...Didn't have to read all of it really. I picked one of his reverse-engineered ships, and poked around...Once I confirmed he was a play-pretend-insider on one ship, the same conclusion can be made for all his statements...My job was done here. :rolleyes:

Lear...The proponent of the giant "soul-catcher" on the Moon, if I'm not mistaken?
 
mikepc said:
Could you explain the difference between weight and mass for us Laymen?

Weight is generally described as the force exerted near another body, such as the force which it takes to lift something on Earth. Mass is a property that all particles of substance exhibit, and is mostly illustrated by it's inertia (the tendency to remain in place or to keep moving in a straight line if moving).

You can render a metal object 'weightless' by removing it from the vicinity of other large objects (orbiting objects aren't really weightless; their centrifugal force counterracts their lesser weight, and they still retain inertia.

Haisch and Rueda et al produced a study of the electromagnetic/gravity/spacetime characteristics of inertia and mass, which, if interpreted one way, suggests that with the right technology, objects could be rendered inertia-less by breaking their connection to spacetime.

Sorry, getting outside layman's territory now. Here there be monsters. ;-)
 
Back
Top