UFO Design

[Z71-K9]

I have been a long time listener to show. I took interest in all television programs and watched lots of videos on sightings.

What I often wondered is why are all ufos either disc, triangles, or orbs? Why don't they look like the Milenium Falcon or the Space Shuttle? What is the significance of those shapes?

Anyone have a theory?

 

[Randall]

I have been a long time listener to show. I took interest in all television programs and watched lots of videos on sightings.

What I often wondered is why are all ufos either disc, triangles, or orbs? Why don't they look like the Milenium Falcon or the Space Shuttle? What is the significance of those shapes?

Anyone have a theory?

You might find this interesting: http://siriusdisclosure.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/ScienceArticle1.pdf

Plus there's always this handy little chart ...​

​

 

[Johnny Nonsense]

I have been a long time listener to show. I took interest in all television programs and watched lots of videos on sightings.

What I often wondered is why are all ufos either disc, triangles, or orbs? Why don't they look like the Milenium Falcon or the Space Shuttle? What is the significance of those shapes?

Anyone have a theory?

Whereas the shuttle used its wings to land aerodynamiclly, UFOs display no such reliance on the atmosphere for their flight. They don't even seem to require being pointed in a certain direction to move in that direction - maybe some of the triangle designs do. They all seem to display an ability to hover with no sound and no thrust below. That means their propulsion system is so radically unusual that we can't possibly know the benefits of whatever shape it is that they use.

Hollywood spaceships like the Falcon are designed to look cool - that's about it. Lucas wanted something that reminds the audience of how a jet fighter flies and sounds (even making sounds in space).

 

[Han]

I have been a long time listener to show. I took interest in all television programs and watched lots of videos on sightings.

What I often wondered is why are all ufos either disc, triangles, or orbs? Why don't they look like the Milenium Falcon or the Space Shuttle? What is the significance of those shapes?

Anyone have a theory?

There are only a few shapes.
and the more complicated ones can be broken down into simpler ones.

Category:Elementary shapes - Wikipedia

Also something to think about is the distance between the UFO and the observer, for example when you look at the vapour trail of a jet Aeroplane, sometimes you can't see the actual craft because it is too far away or obscured. Maybe with some UFOs we are only seeing the "exhaust".

One question that fascinates me is "Alien" tooling, I like to imagine the machines they use to construct UFOs, and do the workers do "friday afternoon work"*, resulting in incidents like the Roswell crash?

RE Starwars: in my opinion The millennium falcon was "loosely" based on a UFO, but the X-wings were based "loosely" on "contemporary jet" fighters.

*as in hurried and rushed work so they can go to the pub early!

 

[the_great_attractor]

Millenium falcon in the baltic sea..?

 

[Han]

I remember the picture above, I think I saw a documentary about "Team x" investigating it, I will see if I can find it on youtube.

 

[Han]

You can find the video here:

An undersea image?

Not sure what has happened since.

 

[marduk]

Just some musings.

One, a circular (or at least rounded) airframe may make sense if the surface is highly charged. A pointy bit would give a 'jump off' point for the charge.

It would also make sense not to have pointy bits if you've surrounded the thing with some kind of plasma envelope. Pointy bits would poke into the plasma.

As for triangles, the most stable shape is a triangular pyramid. Maybe it implies some kind of lateral stability required if it's a flat triangle. Like engine mounts on the edges, maybe.

Interestingly, the highest internal volume shape with the smallest surface is a sphere. It's why planets are round, and why lots of pressure vessels are round. Spaceships should probably be mostly round if they go around in space a lot. That is, if they need to maintain internal pressure. Cheapest internal volume, safest shape, lightest shape because your walls are smaller. Something like a borg cube or a death star.

Or maybe it's just aesthetics. Simple shapes are bound to look cool to lots of different minds.

 

[the_great_attractor]

I will look at the video and see if i find anything more in swedish papers..

 

[Han]

Just some musings.

One, a circular (or at least rounded) airframe may make sense if the surface is highly charged. A pointy bit would give a 'jump off' point for the charge.

It would also make sense not to have pointy bits if you've surrounded the thing with some kind of plasma envelope. Pointy bits would poke into the plasma.

As for triangles, the most stable shape is a triangular pyramid. Maybe it implies some kind of lateral stability required if it's a flat triangle. Like engine mounts on the edges, maybe.

Interestingly, the highest internal volume shape with the smallest surface is a sphere. It's why planets are round, and why lots of pressure vessels are round. Spaceships should probably be mostly round if they go around in space a lot. That is, if they need to maintain internal pressure. Cheapest internal volume, safest shape, lightest shape because your walls are smaller. Something like a borg cube or a death star.

Or maybe it's just aesthetics. Simple shapes are bound to look cool to lots of different minds.

There is also the possibility that they could change configuration mid "flight" like an F-14 or Tornado.
Sort of like a interstellar/intergalactic travel mode and a terrestrial mode when they get there?
Maybe some smaller craft with different "roles" are stowed "folded" up like we do with Aeroplanes on Aircraft Carriers?

Pictures are of F-14 and F-111A

 

[DROBNJAK]

At least looking from the outside, UFO is an electro-magnetic oscillator. Practically UFOs are very similar to a flying Tesla coils.

The outer shell of UFO serves as capacitative load, while inside UFO there is a device that generates an enormous magnetic field. Electro-magnetic field osculates between the outer shell and internal magnetic induction device. Over the years a variety of frequencies had been picked up. Ray Stanford reported about 8Hz and about 13Hz. But other researchers suggested 1MHz. So there is a quite wide bandwidth.

A typical 15m (45ft) UFO would use about 80MW of power, that would be oscillating between the inductive magnetic core and capacitative load. That's about equivalent to 16 average size railway electrical locomotives.

Capacitative load, or the outer body, is subject to extremely high voltages. Air starts breaking about 10kV plus, but UFO's surface would go to hundreds of thousands of volts. If there was a sharp point on the surface of the craft, than lightning would be formed and UFO would waste power. That's why there are many case where the outer shell of UFO was described by witnesses as a perfect single piece of mirror polished metal.

It is very important for UFO to have plasma forming in a uniform fashion, otherwise it would be impossible to control the plasma and the craft itself.

As well, as a complete machines, UFOs only need the upper dome, lower dome is optional. Most likely, the only kind of UFOs that need lower dome are the submersible ones, so called USOs. They need lower dome simply to make spaceship watertight. As well, if UFOs are visiting Earth, they might be visiting other planets, like Venus, Saturn or Jupiter. Without the lower dome, internal components would be exposed to corrosive gases and liquids that are abundant in atmospheres of these planets.

There is no specific reason why UFOs should be made in a lenticular shape as opposed to spherical shape. From point of view of discharge of electrical field, spherical shape would be preferred as the edge of the lenticular shape would create unnecessary sparks. As well, UFOs can move in 3D so spherical shape would be ideal. The fact that UFOs are not spherical but lenticular, tells us that the outer shape might have something to do with their propulsion.

 

[marduk]

At least looking from the outside, UFO is an electro-magnetic oscillator. Practically UFOs are very similar to a flying Tesla coils.

The outer shell of UFO serves as capacitative load, while inside UFO there is a device that generates an enormous magnetic field. Electro-magnetic field osculates between the outer shell and internal magnetic induction device. Over the years a variety of frequencies had been picked up. Ray Stanford reported about 8Hz and about 13Hz. But other researchers suggested 1MHz. So there is a quite wide bandwidth.

A typical 15m (45ft) UFO would use about 80MW of power, that would be oscillating between the inductive magnetic core and capacitative load. That's about equivalent to 16 average size railway electrical locomotives.

Capacitative load, or the outer body, is subject to extremely high voltages. Air starts breaking about 10kV plus, but UFO's surface would go to hundreds of thousands of volts. If there was a sharp point on the surface of the craft, than lightning would be formed and UFO would waste power. That's why there are many case where the outer shell of UFO was described by witnesses as a perfect single piece of mirror polished metal.

It is very important for UFO to have plasma forming in a uniform fashion, otherwise it would be impossible to control the plasma and the craft itself.

As well, as a complete machines, UFOs only need the upper dome, lower dome is optional. Most likely, the only kind of UFOs that need lower dome are the submersible ones, so called USOs. They need lower dome simply to make spaceship watertight. As well, if UFOs are visiting Earth, they might be visiting other planets, like Venus, Saturn or Jupiter. Without the lower dome, internal components would be exposed to corrosive gases and liquids that are abundant in atmospheres of these planets.

There is no specific reason why UFOs should be made in a lenticular shape as opposed to spherical shape. From point of view of discharge of electrical field, spherical shape would be preferred as the edge of the lenticular shape would create unnecessary sparks. As well, UFOs can move in 3D so spherical shape would be ideal. The fact that UFOs are not spherical but lenticular, tells us that the outer shape might have something to do with their propulsion.

A few things.

Number one, you speak as if you know how they work. Which is always problematic.

Number two, capacitive loads do not give lift. It actually makes the object slightly heavier if anything (energy, like information, actually adds to mass).

Number three, if the plasma envelope were uniform, it wouldn't do anything. It would provide a thermal 'out draft' in all directions, the equivalent of pissing in the wind in all directions at once. Providing neither thrust nor buoyancy.

Number four, plasma envelopes wouldn't work in water (salt water is a pretty great conductor), an environment they don't seem to have a problem with.

Number five, it wouldn't work at all in space, because in space there's nothing to make a plasma out of. You'd have capacitance, sure, but if you throw a high storage cap into space, it doesn't do anything except keep it's charge.

 

[marduk]

There is also the possibility that they could change configuration mid "flight" like an F-14 or Tornado.
Sort of like a interstellar/intergalactic travel mode and a terrestrial mode when they get there?
Maybe some smaller craft with different "roles" are stowed "folded" up like we do with Aeroplanes on Aircraft Carriers?

Pictures are of F-14 and F-111A

I always liked the idea of the spaceship from "Flight of the Navigator." It would adapt it's shape to the activity it was trying to do.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Number one, you speak as if you know how they work. Which is always problematic.

OK, I never said that I know how their gravity manipulation propulsion works. That is still shrouded in a mystery.

But, there is a huge body of homogeneous evidence about external physical effects. We should not underestimate our own level of knowledge. If we carefully use known natural laws we might get closer to unraveling their secrets.

For example, overwhelming number of close UFO encounters results in observation electromagnetic effects. We are talking about them emitting vegetation scorching microwaves, interference with car engines, radios and compasses, muscle paralysis, headaches etc.

Because these physical effects had been well documented and researched over 50-60 years it is very safe to compare UFO to an electric circuit. Even one better, if these effects are presented to a scientist or an engineer, there would be very few disagreements. Laws of nature are the same for both us and UFOs. The whole difference between us and them might be only 5-10% of total knowledge.

For example, we might not know how they convert electromagnetism into gravity. But sure as a hell we know how to convert electrostatics into magnetism and vice versa. That is a very good starting point.

Number two, capacitative loads do not give lift. It actually makes the object slightly heavier if anything (energy, like information, actually adds to mass).

Sure, you are talking about Woodward effect. But that is only one facet of a bigger picture. Maybe some other factors have more influence.

Number three, if the plasma envelope were uniform, it wouldn't do anything. It would provide a thermal 'out draft' in all directions, the equivalent of pissing in the wind in all directions at once. Providing neither thrust nor buoyancy.

I beg to very strongly disagree. Plasma envelope had been extensively used to reduce drag on aeroplanes, both in US, Europe and Russia. Its nothing new.

Number four, plasma envelopes wouldn't work in water (salt water is a pretty great conductor), an environment they don't seem to have a problem with.

You are both right and wrong.

Plasma envelope wouldn't work in a direct contact with sea water. But what if there is no direct contact between UFO's skin and sea water? I've just completed reading an excellent book "UFOs and Water: Physical Effects of UFOs On Water Through Accounts By Eyewitnesses" by Carl W. Feindt where author compiled hundreds of cases related to UFOs behavior in a water.

From the above cases it is clear that UFOs enter and exit water while inside a bubble that they create with some form of repulsive field. I knew about well documented attractive field that UFOs create, but Carl Feindt's highlighting of this repulsive field was completely new to me. At least half of the book is devoted to this repulsive field.

Number five, it wouldn't work at all in space, because in space there's nothing to make a plasma out of. You'd have capacitance, sure, but if you throw a high storage cap into space, it doesn't do anything except keep it's charge.

Agreed, there is no plasma in space. But, again, plasma is inseparable companion of UFOs. Majority of medium distance encounters, like 200-300m (500-1,000ft) or more, reports various stages of plasma around the crafts. So plasma is undeniably there. Plasma can simply be a side effect of the workings of the main propulsion.

And indeed, typically in most cases, plasma is not observed when larger crafts are landing. Only basketball size crafts are observed as constantly enveloped in plasma. If UFO was landing into a thick vegetation, while enveloped into plasma it would cause fire around itself. The absence of plasma during lending clearly points that the plasma doesn't play role in propulsion itself, but that it has some secondary use, like reducing aerodynamic drag or creating reduced air pressure zone.

 

[Randall]

Good creative thought going on here. I don't know how UFO propulsion works, just that they seem to have done away with any form of internal combustion. Nearly all the shapes reported facilitate a torus shaped superconducting energy storage system, and I suspect that is the main power source and possibly also part of the propulsion system itself. I mentioned this back in the early 90s to some nerds on the old MIT board and they said that the levitation phenomenon with superconductors doesn't affect gravitational influence.

I challenged them to create an experiment to test that, and coincidentally ( or otherwise ) not long after that, some nerds in Iceland ( if I recall correctly ) claimed to have done it, and that a small gravitational variance was indeed detected, but somewhat like cold-fusion, duplicating the results has been hit and miss. However I think that experiments that follow along the lines of high-energy superconducting storage systems combined with oscillating magnetic fields might allow us to stumble upon the key someplace. If Bigelow ( of Bigelow Aerospace ) would just put me in charge of his UFO propulsion project I'd have his engineers on it in an afternoon!

 

[marduk]

OK, I never said that I know how their gravity manipulation propulsion works. That is still shrouded in a mystery.

It may not work at all is my point.

There has been zero observational data demonstrating gravity nullification as an effect anywhere in the observable universe.

Take black holes for example. They swallow everything. Even light. Even information.

The fundamental problem with antigravity may not be what people think it is. It may be entropy. It always increases.

And gravity might be an emergent property that conforms to thermodynamics.

Entropic gravity, also known as emergent gravity, is a theory in modern physics that describes gravity as an entropic force—a force with macro-scale homogeneity but which is subject to quantum-level disorder—and not a fundamental interaction. The theory, based on string theory, black hole physics, and quantum information theory, describes gravity as an emergentphenomenon that springs from the quantum entanglement of small bits of spacetime information. As such, entropic gravity is said to abide by the second law of thermodynamics under which the entropy of a physical system tends to increase over time.

Entropic gravity - Wikipedia

In such a system, there may be no 'antigravity' in the same way there is no 'before' the big bang. It's a divide by zero error.

But, there is a huge body of homogeneous evidence about external physical effects. We should not underestimate our own level of knowledge. If we carefully use known natural laws we might get closer to unraveling their secrets.

For example, overwhelming number of close UFO encounters results in observation electromagnetic effects. We are talking about them emitting vegetation scorching microwaves, interference with car engines, radios and compasses, muscle paralysis, headaches etc.

Sure. I'm one of the ones that think AG and EM effects are somehow related -- if that's in fact what's going on.

The problem is that correlation does not equal causation.

EM effects may have nothing to do with propulsion. It may have to do with something completely different. Hell, for all we know it's the equivalent of stupid kids putting light kits under their cars and spinners on hubcaps to make them look cool. If you didn't know how a car worked, you might think the lights and spinners are what makes it go. When in fact, it doesn't do anything at all.

What I would also point out is that *some* UFOs seem to emit flames as propulsion. *Some* don't exhibit EM effects. There is no 'grand unified field theory' on this stuff.

But what I would say is that if somebody like you or whatshisname that Chris keeps saying has it figured out, please keep coming forward with ideas - because we gotta get off this rock.

Because these physical effects had been well documented and researched over 50-60 years it is very safe to compare UFO to an electric circuit. Even one better, if these effects are presented to a scientist or an engineer, there would be very few disagreements. Laws of nature are the same for both us and UFOs. The whole difference between us and them might be only 5-10% of total knowledge.

Again, what if electricity is just a by-product of something else... like moving through our atmosphere? It might be a secondary effect or something that is a hinderance, not a positive thing. Like ocean vessels having to put sacrificial anodes on their hull to prevent corrosion.

For example, we might not know how they convert electromagnetism into gravity. But sure as a hell we know how to convert electrostatics into magnetism and vice versa. That is a very good starting point.

The difference is electricity and magnetism are kinda the same thing. Gravity and electricity aren't.

Sure, you are talking about Woodward effect. But that is only one facet of a bigger picture. Maybe some other factors have more influence.

No, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the fact that a full battery weighs more than an empty one, and a full hard drive weighs more than an empty one.

I beg to very strongly disagree. Plasma envelope had been extensively used to reduce drag on aeroplanes, both in US, Europe and Russia. Its nothing new.

Sure. I think it's a pretty cool effect.

That would be totally useless in space or underwater.

You are both right and wrong.

Plasma envelope wouldn't work in a direct contact with sea water. But what if there is no direct contact between UFO's skin and sea water? I've just completed reading an excellent book "UFOs and Water: Physical Effects of UFOs On Water Through Accounts By Eyewitnesses" by Carl W. Feindt where author compiled hundreds of cases related to UFOs behavior in a water.

From the above cases it is clear that UFOs enter and exit water while inside a bubble that they create with some form of repulsive field. I knew about well documented attractive field that UFOs create, but Carl Feindt's highlighting of this repulsive field was completely new to me. At least half of the book is devoted to this repulsive field.

I've read it and found that bit intriguing, but also misleading. Not *every* account has this effect, nor does the majority.

And it still doesn't provide propulsion, nor does it answer how it would work in a vacuum.

[quoteAgreed, there is no plasma in space. But, again, plasma is inseparable companion of UFOs. Majority of medium distance encounters, like 200-300m (500-1,000ft) or more, reports various stages of plasma around the crafts. So plasma is undeniably there. Plasma can simply be a side effect of the workings of the main propulsion.[/quote]

You can't say it's undeniably there. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that it has a repulsive field that only works on seawater but not air to get a plasma that nobody has ever measured and where there's no theoretical underpinning for a thrust effect.

It might be there. It sure might. But undeniable is too strong a word.

And indeed, typically in most cases, plasma is not observed when larger crafts are landing. Only basketball size crafts are observed as constantly enveloped in plasma. If UFO was landing into a thick vegetation, while enveloped into plasma it would cause fire around itself. The absence of plasma during lending clearly points that the plasma doesn't play role in propulsion itself, but that it has some secondary use, like reducing aerodynamic drag or creating reduced air pressure zone.

If they have a repulsive field, they wouldn't care about drag.

If it had a plasma field, sure it would light plants on fire. It would also short out the circuit and make the thing come crashing down as the EM field that creates the plasma gets grounded to the earth.

 

[DROBNJAK]

>> There has been zero observational data demonstrating gravity nullification as an effect anywhere in the observable universe.<<

While that is true, many things exist only as man made. There are no spontaneously made AC electric motors in the observable universe.

Some modification of gravity does exist in a form of gravitational lenses.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lets stay on the firm ground.

If we keep away from unproven mathematical poetry, like string theory, parallel universes, traveling back in time etc. and stick with mundane commercial grade engineering physics, than by the tried-and-tested and 100 years old Special Relativity, gravity is simply curvature of space-time. Lets not forget that Special Relativity is used in everyday gadgets like GPS and satellite communications and it is quite a plain vanilla for those who know how to use it.

Whatever Gravity is, it is very unlikely that UFO electromagnetic effects have nothing to do with producing UFO's modified gravity. One can read various papers published by Bruce Maccabee and Ray Stanford that illustrate strong presence of EM fields.

Design of any flying machine, like aeroplane or UFO, will always be constrained by imperative to save weight and increase payload. UFOs are designed to cross wast voids between stars and they can not afford to carry fancy stuff of no use. Gravitational effects that UFOs produce are restricted to a small area in a vicinity of the craft. UFO's modified gravity is not spreading out further than 1 or 2 UFO diameters. Contrary to that, UFO's EM effects can be felt many miles away.

In other words, it takes UFO a lots of EM to create a very little gravity modification. Hypothetically, but within a reason, we might assume that ratio of the EM's energy to Modified Gravity's energy is similar to the ratio of UFOs mass devoted to EM vs UFOs mass devoted to modified gravity. For example if we have 30 tons UFO, than we can say that 29 tons are used for EM energy and maybe 1 ton is used for modifying gravity. Now, this is only a very crude, probably wrong working assumption, but importantly very down to earth, without any fancy stuff.

A chief aerodynamicist of McDonald Douglas, Paul Hill, estimated a weight of 10m (30ft) UFO close to 30 tons. That UFO would be beaming EM field strong enough to stop car's petrol engines from 100-200m (300-400ft) away. We are simply talking about levels of EM power that is the same order of magnitude as the output of a whole hydroelectric dam, packed in a single 10m craft. There was even a case, in Portugal, of 3m (9ft) UFO actually knocking a hydroelectric dam's generator for few hours.

What I am trying to illustrate is that EM output is so huge, it can't be just a side-show. A very large percentage of UFO's mass is devoted to creation of EM energy. So it must be of some use in modifying gravity. Otherwise UFOs wouldn't waste so much of its mass to lumber heavy EM components accross distances measured in light years.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are few primary considerations here. Foremost, we are dealing with a statistical analysis. Witnesses reports might not be exact, but undeniably contain statistically significant trends that are firmly grounded in known lows of nature.

Second, we have to assume that all the UFOs are not made in the same factory. As it is unlikely that we are the only developed species in universe, it is equally unlikely that there is only one more developed species. Most likely there are dozens of civilizations that are flying their crafts around in variety of UFO types. Some of them might use plasma, some will not. Some of them will use landing gear, while others will not etc. etc. But 99% of them manifest gigantic EM fields.

So we have few hundred of physical observations by witnesses and maybe a dozen of different UFO types. We have no choice but to use statistical approach here and count how many times each observed physical effect featured in witness testimonies.

Unfortunately for the flames that @marduk mentioned, I only know of two cases where flames were seen, in comparison with hundreds, if not thousands of observed EM effects.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Regarding the repulsive field, it actually appears in few cases as the most prominent observation. But it appears that they are always either on the ground with engines off or flying close to the ground ready to land, when repulsive field is in action. Repulsive field is new to me, because I was only aware of cases with attractive modified gravity field.

UFOs seemingly don't care about the air drag at all. They have at leas two methods to deal with it: plasma and possibly repulsive field.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UFOs have plasma around themselves, there is no second guessing about that. They simply manage that plasma carefully enough to avoid short circuits and lightning bolts to the ground. That would be easy even with our own engineering.

Now the fact that electric field and plasma are off when UFO is about to land gives you one very important clue. Because UFO is still hovering above the ground when plasma is off (to avoid lightnings into the ground), that means that electric field doesn't have big role in creating modified gravity. That would mean that modified gravity is mostly related to magnetic field.

Now, just this single detail is consistent with General Relativity. Because one of 24 differential equations in GR describes direct connection between gravity and magnetism.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, this is why it is worth carefully studying UFO physical effects. If one follows clue after clue, he or she can finally discover how to "take ET back home" as Ben Rich, Lockheed Martin's CEO once said.

 

[Han]

I always liked the idea of the spaceship from "Flight of the Navigator." It would adapt it's shape to the activity it was trying to do.

I had to watch this film again, because I hadn't seen it for a very long time, I was suprised at how good some of the special effects were.
The UFO in its is really well done, and I believe based on drawings from a report, but I can't remember which one.

I have looked at the Drawings from the Japan Air Lines flight 1628 UFO report, and it is not very similar, however I recall that the Pilot described it as being "Walnut" shaped, which is how I might describe the one from the Movie:

When it is in "normal mode".

Re UFO's making a sort of "shield" or "bubble" around them, I may have misunderstood, but I think Bob Lazar described the UFO's he allegedly worked on as "disrupting" gravity and making a sort of envelope that allows the craft to travel.
Maybe a bit like an Ice Breaker ship, or the way headlights on a car light the way ahead?

Really interesting thread!

 

[marduk]

Whatever Gravity is, it is very unlikely that UFO electromagnetic effects have nothing to do with producing UFO's modified gravity.

Why?

Aside from Stanford saying "they get brighter when they move" where's the data?

He's never released anything.

 

[marduk]

Design of any flying machine, like aeroplane or UFO, will always be constrained by imperative to save weight and increase payload. UFOs are designed to cross wast voids between stars and they can not afford to carry fancy stuff of no use. Gravitational effects that UFOs produce are restricted to a small area in a vicinity of the craft. UFO's modified gravity is not spreading out further than 1 or 2 UFO diameters. Contrary to that, UFO's EM effects can be felt many miles away.

Maybe. This seems logical if the amount of energy required to nullify gravity increases with the mass of the object you're influencing.

However, maybe it's a volumetric. Meaning, mass might not matter.

Or energy consumption may not matter.

I remember someone doing some kind of analysis on the weight of the things when they landed, and it was surprisingly high.