UFO Design

[marduk]

Really good.



"Small asteroid" ... Excellent, that is not much of requirement.



If we assume that UFOs exist, than some of GR equations most certainly are amiss. Most likely it is just one or two equations in GR, or maybe just one term.



Now this is extremely interesting. Not just interesting, It is phenomenal.

What you said about "distortion spherical in shape above the object" is exactly what had been confirmed across at least dozen of UFO cases.

Possibly the most reliable case ever, the "The Coyne UFO Incident, Mansfield, Ohio 1973" displayed exactly indications of such behavior. A 9,040 lb (4,100 kg) gross weight, Huye helicopter with four crew members was pulled up 1,800ft (600m) upwards, while UFO was hovering above it. That illustrates that artificial G field around UFO can pull other objects in a vicinity.

As well, there are dozens of of UFOs & water cases, where a "dome" of water appears before UFO comes out of water. When a conning tower of normal submarine comes out, water immediately splashes to the side and conning tower comes out without any thick water envelope. Apparently, with UFOs, first this water dome envelope comes up and only when a large part of UFO's body is out, than water splashes over the sides.

This dome can only be explained by existence of an attractive gravitational "focal point" above the UFO and at least two different researchers who specialize in water cases, had described these "domes".

It would be nice if you can elaborate a bit on these equations of yours. I was looking for physics that can explain these "water domes".

I think I found it:

This could be true, and I can see the possibility of this.

However, let's make two "entity" assumptions (in Ockham's terms) and posit that:
1) an advanced civilization can directly convert mass to energy for power (I think ZPE is stupid), and
2) an advanced civilization can direct large amounts of energy to arbitrary points outside the craft and convert that energy back to mass

I can conceive of this being possible within what we understand of physics (no, I'm not a physicist and I 100% expect to be called out on my crap).

How much energy would it take to lift a craft?

Let's say a 10 meter diameter disc has the similar mass of, say, a F-22 Raptor which has a mass of about 20,000 kg.

So it would exert a force of about 200,000 Newtons downwards towards the earth.

So, to levitate it would need to exert a force of at least 200,000 Newtons vertically upward.

How much mass would it take to exert this much force from, say, 1 cm outside the top of the hull?

Using this handy dandy calculator Gravitational Force Calculator and playing with the numbers I come up with a resultant required mass of about 20,000,000kg, or about the mass of Godzilla in Godzilla vs Gigan according to this website: Calc Storage - From The Toho Archives: Godzilla vs Gigan (1972) - Naruto Forums

Of course the 20,000,000kg (or 1 Godzilla unit) would have to exist in an area of 1cm radius or less, which results in a density of 2x10^13kg/m^3, or just under the neutron dip line where the atomic nucleus falls apart into protons or neutrons. It wouldn't degrade into neutron star density per se, but wow... this thing would be damn dense. Like, Rense dense.

How much energy would it take to make that much mass assuming 100% total efficiency in conversion?

About 2 x 10^24 joules, or the amount of energy the sun emits in 1/100th of a second. Whoa.

Of course you'd also need to convert about 2000 cubic meters of lead to get the energy to do this to begin with. Double whoa.

This would have the additional downside of having the resultant object plummet towards the earth if it didn't immediately explode due to nuclear fusion, and either blow up your disc or punch a nice round hole through the middle of the hull before it slammed into the Earth and proceeded downward towards the core.

Crap.

This isn't working.

Even if you didn't use energy to create mass to levitate the craft (by, say, warping spacetime)... that's a shit-ton of energy just to hold your disc up and wow the natives.

Back to the drawing board.

And:

okokokok... let's say it does use plasma propulsion for thrust...

Magnetohydrodynamic plasma thrusters generate about 25N of thrust with about 500kw of power (Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, lessee, to generate 200,000N of force would take... carry the 2... about 4,000,000kw of power.

To stay levitating for one hour would consume about 1.4x10^13J, or the direct conversion of about 7.6kg of mass to energy.

Way, way more reasonable. Of course you'd need about eight thousand times the size of a thruster to do so...

On top of that, we still have the problem of the stuff you have to use for thrust -- the material you are going to exhaust to begin with. If you were using air for thrust, it wouldn't work in space, under water, and would produce a helluvalaotta thrust downward -- enough to probably light local livestock on fire.

That's not reported. At all.

Sigh.

and:

Bah, I don't believe that at all, and that's just waving your arms in the air and claiming "magic." Anyway, it's no fun at all.

There's very little in the visible universe that doesn't behave the way we expect it to behave. Besides, if you get rid of the stuff you know doesn't work, it lets you pair stuff down and leads you down thought pathways....

Waitaminute.

Dark energy.

Dark energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to accelerate the expansion of the universe.[1] Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis to explain observations since the 1990s that indicate that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, on a mass–energy equivalence basis the universe contains 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy (for a total of 95.1%) and 4.9% ordinary matter....
​

and

Independently of its actual nature, dark energy would need to have a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively) in order to explain the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe.​

According to General Relativity, the pressure within a substance contributes to its gravitational attraction for other things just as its mass density does. This happens because the physical quantity that causes matter to generate gravitational effects is the stress–energy tensor, which contains both the energy (or matter) density of a substance and its pressure and viscosity.

In the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, it can be shown that a strong constant negative pressure in all the universe causes an acceleration in universe expansion if the universe is already expanding, or a deceleration in universe contraction if the universe is already contracting. More exactly, the second derivative of the universe scale factor, \ddot{a}, is positive if the equation of state of the universe is such that \! w<-1/3 (see Friedmann equations).

This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masses—which remains attractive—but rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.

The acceleration is simply a function of dark energy density. Dark energy is persistent: its density remains constant (experimentally, within a factor of 1:10), i.e. it does not get diluted when space expands.
​

Hmm...

If you emitted dark energy underneath the craft, causing space there to expand at the same rate as you were falling... you may effectively bouy yourself up on a bubble of space-time.

Waitaminute again.

If you expanded space-time in a bubble underneath your craft to "surf" on top of it, you'd expand space-time but dramatically reduce the density of the atmosphere and you'd expect the air to actually rush in under the craft quite a bit.

And by the ground... well... you'd probably rip the ground apart and at the same time convert the dirt to gas as you rip the component molecules apart by making the distances between them and disrupt the covalent bonds. Maybe explosively.

Crapcrapcrap.

I need another scotch.

 

[DROBNJAK]

The problem is that correlation does not equal causation.

I took a serious note of your objection. So I researched more on the GR side of things, where all the fields meet. And I found this very interesting paper "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Robert L. Forward (from Hughes Research Labs.) published in American Journal of Physics, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp. 166-170 (1963). So its all peer reviewed and above the board.

Essentially, the General Relativity includes a number of Non-Newtonian accelerations, at least three different ones. N-N acceleration means objects get accelerated but they don't experience any forces. Sounds familiar. Ehhhh?

If you imagine a smoke ring consisting of mega heavy liquid (neutron star matter) spinning around minor toroid's axis, at a some significant fraction of the speed of light, than one gets non-newtonian accelerations right along the toroid's major axis.

Now normal matter can't stand these centrifugal forces, so Robert Forward suggests using strong magnetic fields to harness these forces. Now, Bruce MacAbiee's UFO magnetic field estimates go far above 100 Tesla, which is gigantic.

This than ties in with @marduk view that EM fields can be doing something else, not producing artificial gravity.

Everybody, go google "non-newtonian acceleration" ;-)

 

[marduk]

I took a serious note of your objection. So I researched more on the GR side of things, where all the fields meet. And I found this very interesting paper "Guidelines to Antigravity" by Robert L. Forward (from Hughes Research Labs.) published in American Journal of Physics, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp. 166-170 (1963). So its all peer reviewed and above the board.

Essentially, the General Relativity includes a number of Non-Newtonian accelerations, at least three different ones. N-N acceleration means objects get accelerated but they don't experience any forces. Sounds familiar. Ehhhh?

If you imagine a smoke ring consisting of mega heavy liquid (neutron star matter) spinning around minor toroid's axis, at a some significant fraction of the speed of light, than one gets non-newtonian accelerations right along the toroid's major axis.

Now normal matter can't stand these centrifugal forces, so Robert Forward suggests using strong magnetic fields to harness these forces. Now, Bruce MacAbiee's UFO magnetic field estimates go far above 100 Tesla, which is gigantic.

This than ties in with @marduk view that EM fields can be doing something else, not producing artificial gravity.

Everybody, go google "non-newtonian acceleration" ;-)

EM fields can cause gravity. Energy distorts space time just like mass does.

The problem is that it doesn't cause a negative distortion (flattening spacetime), it causes a positive distortion more.

That's why I was saying a full battery weighs more than an empty one. Energy distorts space time. The problem is, generating energy makes something heavier, not lighter.

There's a key element in that paper you referenced. It's explicitly trying to link magnetism and gravity:

In studying analogies between electromagne- tism and gravitation, it can be seen that one analogous quantity has not been investigated. This is the gravitational equivalent to the mag- netic permeability. Electrical power distribu- tion systems depend upon the anomalously large and nonlinear permeability of iron and other magnetic materials. Since all atoms have spin, all materials will have a gravitational perme- ability which is different from that of free space. Rough calculations show that this difference is very small, but experimental investigation may find materials with anomalously large or non- linear properties that can be used to enhance time-varying gravitational fields. Also, since the magnetic moment and the inertial moment are combined in an atom, it may be possible to use this property to convert time-varying electro- magnetic fields into time-varying gravitational fields. At present, the only way to search for such materials is to intersperse wedges of material between gravitational wave generators and de-10 and look for a change in amplitude or direction have been carried out by the Russian workers Braginsky, Rudenko, and Rukman with negative results.

In other words, they need a material with variable gravitational field permeability. And what Einstein explicitly said is that all matter is the same with regards to gravity, everywhere in the universe.

Mass is the measure of matter's impact on space-time. You can't have negative mass without exotic matter, which may or may not exist.

And if it did, you'd essentially have UFOs be aerodynamically equivalent to dirigibles. They'd have zero mass, and wouldn't be influenced by earth's gravity at all.

But everything in the object would have zero or negative mass. Otherwise, it would still have mass, right?

And the paper you referenced said it didn't work.

 

[marduk]

I think this is what you're looking for: Gravitational torsion field - Wikiversity and Physics/Essays/Fedosin/Gravitational induction - Wikiversity

Specifically:

Negative energy density and energy flux lead to unique property inherent to gravitational field. This property lies in the fact that the gravitational effect of induction between two masses under certain conditions is not damped, and may increase in amplitude, as in systems with positive feedback. For example, if two bodies are attracted by gravitation and rotate in the same direction, then the change of potential energy of gravitational field will transform into rotational energy of the bodies through gravitational induction. Thus, the bodies will rotate each other, increasing torsion field Ω

around them.

Described mechanism is proposed to explain the nuclear forces between nucleons in atomic nuclei. [5] With proper arrangement of nucleons in nucleus due to the gravitational induction nucleons spin up to a maximum angular velocity. The result is a repulsive force of nucleons spins (in gravitoelectromagnetism these forces are called gravitomagnetic forces) of such magnitude that are enough to compensate the force of attraction of the nucleons from the field of strong gravitation. In such evaluating of the forces acting in atomic nuclei, is used strong gravitational constant.

 

[marduk]

Something to ponder: Why the bluish glow reported around many UFOs?

CO2 dissipates its energy by collision and transfer processes that are broadened by rotational motions to create a blue background emission. You can see the background in this spectrum ( graph below ) for example, along with lesser contributions from Swan bands.

So the question then becomes: What sort of mechanism apart from combustion would cause the naturally occurring CO2 in the air to dissipate it's energy through collisions broadened by rotational motion? We have noticed that a similar effect is St. Elmos Fire, which is a luminous phenomena created by the presence of a strong electric field that results in the ionization of air molecules. So the inference is that an electric field ( or EM field ) could indeed be part of such a mechanism.

The question is what is the other part that affects gravity? My hunch is that it has something to do with the movement of the EM field. The levitation of the superconducting magnet ( experiment alluded to earlier ) didn't show signs of gravitational variance until the disk was rotated at high speed. However, my proposal would be that rather than rotating the disk ( magnet ) itself, simply rotate the field instead. This could be accomplished by high-speed electronic switching. Such technology is already in use in some electric motors. This approach would reduce the energy requirement substantially.

I'll mention here that although a connection between EM fields and gravity has not been firmly established, there have been serious scientific efforts to unite these forces, and therefore I think it can be safely assumed that simply because we haven't unified the them yet doesn't mean there isn't some way to do it, and if rotating the field has something to do with it, then the math would have to consider temporal factors, which sort-of points us back to Einstein's spacetime model. So the formula would work out to something like: Effect on gravity = strength of EM field in some relation to it's movement through time. And of course this movement would need to be circular in order to facilitate the suspension of a fixed object within the field.

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

DISCLAIMER: I'm not making any claim that this is "science" or that I'm a scientist, and simple references to scientific facts and ideas during informal discussion do not automatically make every such discussion pseudoscience. To qualify as pseudoscience, the content in question must carry with it sufficient evidence that the intent is to impart the idea that genuine science is taking place, when in fact it's not. This disclaimer makes it clear that no such activity is going on here. It's just an open and informal discussion, the scientific value of which can only be determined by genuine science, should anyone feel so inspired to explore that path.

Ya, that's interesting. Hadn't thought about what kind of energy would ionize the air like that.

About the superconducting magnet stuff... wasn't that stuff pretty seriously debunked?

Eugene Podkletnov - Wikipedia

and
Gravitational shielding | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events

and

As a Bose condensate, superconductors provide novel conditions for revisiting previously proposed couplings between electromagnetism and gravity. Strong variations in Cooper pair density, large conductivity and low magnetic permeability define superconductive and degenerate condensates without the traditional density limits imposed by the Fermi energy (∼ 10−6 g cm3). Recent experiments have reported anomalous weight loss for a test mass suspended above a rotating type II, YBCO superconductor, with the percentage change (0.05–2.1%) independent of the test mass' chemical composition and diamagnetic properties. A variation of 5 parts per 104 was reported above a stationary (non-rotating) superconductor. In experiments using a sensitive gravimeter, bulk YBCO superconductors were stably levitated in a DC magnetic field. Changes in acceleration were measured to be less than 2 parts in 108 of the normal gravitational acceleration. This result puts new limits on the strength and range of the proposed coupling between static superconductors and gravity.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921453497014627

In other words, the whole "spin stuff and gravity goes away" meme has never been replicate by anyone, ever. NASA gave it a go, and if there were results, they were below the ability effectively measure.

 

[marduk]

You have tendency to see problems where there are obvious solutions. Sky is a big place, one can easily fit aircraft and UFO close enough without them affecting each other. There was a case in Australia, where UFO flew above small Cesna aircraft and caused crash. But its more likely it was caused by interruption of the engine. There is a video of a basketball size UFO, possibly drone, flies around Concord. Small UFO, big plane, and everything is ok.

I'm a contrarian. It's what I do.

What I mean is this. You use EM to distort space-time to the equivalent of an asteroids mass right above your craft. Which makes your craft fall up at the same rate it falls down, right? Right.

Something goes under your craft. It will then experience the same gravitational distortion, just less so because it's further away. If it was a plane flying level, it would be pulled upwards. Along with the air under the craft.

Which would meet the air being pulled towards the distortion from all other directions, causing turbulence.

So, I would expect a plane flying under a ufo to fall upward, crash into it, and be torn to pieces by the turbulence.

And let's not forget that the gravitation distortion itself would be influenced by earth's gravitational field, causing it to fall with a lot of inertia. Like, you know, an asteroid or godzilla would fall if you left it in the air.

Causing the disk to go ramming into terra firma.

 

[marduk]

Nazi Bell, Podklednov and Searl

All three have been firmly debunked.

Again, I know Chris digs Farrell (I don't), but there is absolutely no evidence for anything like the bell.

Farrell is building off of Witkowski, who just made stuff up.

Discussion of Die Glocke originated in the works of Igor Witkowski. His 2000 Polish language book Prawda o Wunderwaffe (The Truth About The Wonder Weapon, reprinted in German as Die Wahrheit über die Wunderwaffe), refers to it as "The Nazi-Bell". Witkowski wrote that he first discovered the existence of Die Glocke by reading transcripts from an interrogation of former Nazi SS Officer Jakob Sporrenberg. According to Witkowski, he was shown the allegedly classified transcripts in August 1997 by an unnamed Polish intelligence contact who said he had access to Polish government documents regarding Nazi secret weapons.[3] Witkowski maintains that he was only allowed to transcribe the documents and was not allowed to make any copies. Although no evidence of the veracity of Witkowski’s statements has been produced, they reached a wider audience when they were retold by British author Nick Cook, who added his own views to Witkowski’s statements in The Hunt for Zero Point.[4] Author Jason Colavitowrote that Witkowski's claims were "recycled" from 1960s rumors of Nazi occult science first published in Morning of the Magicians, and describes Die Glocke as "a device few outside of fringe culture think actually existed. In short, it looks to be a hoax, or at least a wild exaggeration."

The guy Witkowski got his information from was a Nazi all right... one of the heads of the Nazi police force. Nothing to do with science, or the Wunderwaffe. There is no documentation trail aside from what Witkowski said he saw.

Farrell's rig was a cooling tower.

One could go on.

Die Glocke - Wikipedia

Searl and his SEG is just another free energy scam. He's never shown anything.

 

[Randall]

Ya, that's interesting. Hadn't thought about what kind of energy would ionize the air like that.

About the superconducting magnet stuff... wasn't that stuff pretty seriously debunked?Eugene Podkletnov - Wikipedia
and Gravitational shielding | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921453497014627

In other words, the whole "spin stuff and gravity goes away" meme has never been replicate by anyone, ever. NASA gave it a go, and if there were results, they were below the ability effectively measure.

Ya. It seems a lot like the cold fusion deal ( thanks for the links ), but then again, I don't know of any experiments where they've actually created tall he lab conditions that are required, or done extensive testing with all the variables. I can't help but think that with persistence, it's possible that some sort of clue will surface, or someone will accidentally flick the wrong switch and presto! One thing that those who've seen a UFO know is that somehow it's done, so unlike the scientific skeptics who say it's impossible, there has to be a way, and this avenue of inquiry seems to be the most promising. Unless maybe you've got a better idea? I'm always listening and that's what this thread is all about

BTW: Here's some more interesting stuff: Superconductors at American Antigravity

 

[marduk]

Ya. It seems a lot like the cold fusion deal ( thanks for the links ), but then again, I don't know of any experiments where they've actually created tall he lab conditions that are required, or done extensive testing with all the variables. I can't help but think that with persistence, it's possible that some sort of clue will surface, or someone will accidentally flick the wrong switch and presto! One thing that those who've seen a UFO know is that somehow it's done, so unlike the scientific skeptics who say it's impossible, there has to be a way, and this avenue of inquiry seems to be the most promising. Unless maybe you've got a better idea? I'm always listening and that's what this thread is all about

BTW: Here's some more interesting stuff: Superconductors at American Antigravity

What if it has nothing to do with AG at all is my point.

I mean, think about it. If they have a functioning 'gravity shield' to nullify earth's gravity, then it wouldn't be in earth's inertial frame. Meaning, the earth would keep moving around the sun and the object wouldn't. It would have to continually correct for the earth's rotation and orbit. Plus, the object would then effectively have zero mass from earth's frame of reference, and a strong breeze would literally make it blow away - it would act like a balloon. So the object would have to balance all kinds of random and non-random forces just to do what it seems to do best: hover.

That seems really, really messy.

If they use energy by projecting it upward to make a counterbalancing gravitational field, internally objects in the craft would be zero gravity as well. Plus, the gravity well above the craft would still fall towards the earth, so you'd continually have to keep projecting it upward. It should also cause air turbulence.

That seems really, really messy.

In the stuff above I talk about magnetohydrodynamic propulsion, and plasma propulsion.

They seem really, really messy too.

Maybe it's something totally different?

Maybe the craft itself is the lifting body, and uses some kind of ion propulsion? That's blue.

 

[Randall]

What if it has nothing to do with AG at all is my point ...

It doesn't hurt to consider all options, but I just don't think we're dealing with thrust generators in any conventional sense, which includes ion drives. Maybe the sticky point is in how we're defining "antigravity". What I've been imagining isn't so much a shield as a sort of projector, which amounts to essentially the same idea as a warp bubble, but I don't think of it as actually warping space. I think the warped space model of gravity works so well as an analogy to whatever is really going on that it's become a sort of meme, but it isn't really the way it is.

It's like a readout from a graphic EQ in audio ( if you know what I mean ). It charts various frequencies in a way that we can make visual sense of them, but that's not what sound really is in the actual environment. What this suggests is that we may not need to create something with the mass of an entire planet to produce a gravitational effect sufficient enough to counter a planet's natural gravitational attraction ( to a relatively small craft ). Also, because gravity affects everything equally regardless of mass, the parts of the craft within the influence of the system would always be in a state of relative zero G, which would facilitate the crazy maneuvers reported without splattering the occupants ( or whatever ) all over the interior.

 

[marduk]

It doesn't hurt to consider all options, but I just don't think we're dealing with thrust generators in any conventional sense, which includes ion drives. Maybe the sticky point is in how we're defining "antigravity". What I've been imagining isn't so much a shield as a sort of projector, which amounts to essentially the same idea as a warp bubble, but I don't think of it as actually warping space. I think the warped space model of gravity works so well as an analogy to whatever is really going on that it's become a sort of meme, but it isn't really the way it is.

It's like a readout from a graphic EQ in audio ( if you know what I mean ). It charts various frequencies in a way that we can make visual sense of them, but that's not what sound really is in the actual environment. What this suggests is that we may not need to create something with the mass of an entire planet to produce a gravitational effect sufficient enough to counter a planet's natural gravitational attraction ( to a relatively small craft ). Also, because gravity affects everything equally regardless of mass, the parts of the craft within the influence of the system would always be in a state of relative zero G, which would facilitate the crazy maneuvers reported without splattering the occupants ( or whatever ) all over the interior.

I like where you're going.

This hypothetical projector would have to flatten spacetime locally. The only thing I can think of that even theoretically could do something like that would be dark energy.

Accelerated cosmic expansion causes gravitational potential wells and hills to flatten as photons pass through them, producing cold spots and hot spots on the CMB aligned with vast supervoids and superclusters. This so-called late-time Integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect (ISW) is a direct signal of dark energy in a flat universe.[29] It was reported at high significance in 2008 by Ho et al.[30] and Giannantonio et al.[31]

Dark energy - Wikipedia

 

[withoutlimits09]

I don't know, but I am disappointed to know they can come all this way, but still require "little flashing lights," "telescopic landing gear," and "port holes for windows" We don't even see this crude of technology on our advanced stealth fighters/bombers.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Which of these two looks to to be more "advanced" and technological? The flying hub cap, or the 60s-70s designed stealth bomber? Even if we could create a flying disc, it wouldn't "look" like the posted photo, even today, let alone thousands of years from now. I always laugh when I heard the advanced alien space ship needed love boat style port holes for them to look out at us! Little "windows." Hell, modern cruise ships have largely abandoned that look.

 

[technomage]

Which of these two looks to to be more "advanced" and technological? The flying hub cap, or the 60s-70s designed stealth bomber? Even if we could create a flying disc, it wouldn't "look" like the posted photo, even today, let alone thousands of years from now. I always laugh when I heard the advanced alien space ship needed love boat style port holes for them to look out at us! Little "windows." Hell, modern cruise ships have largely abandoned that look.

Maybe advanced beings like a retro look? Maybe you go through phases and come back to the retro look when you're really advanced? Also, they could be using some kind of holographic projection technology to make it look like something we'd expect it to look. It could also be a fake.

 

[Burnt State]

Which of these two looks to to be more "advanced" and technological? The flying hub cap, or the 60s-70s designed stealth bomber? Even if we could create a flying disc, it wouldn't "look" like the posted photo, even today, let alone thousands of years from now. I always laugh when I heard the advanced alien space ship needed love boat style port holes for them to look out at us! Little "windows." Hell, modern cruise ships have largely abandoned that look.

What you appear to be identifying in these sightings is that the person doing the seeing plays a significant role in defining the appearances of these unique pieces of technology in the sky. Putting aside the fact that many of the photos created by people of "spaceships" in our atmosphere are obvious inventions, or that reports describe ships in ways that are keeping with the times, it's important to acknowledge that many reports also include the highly weird as far as textures, shapes, light, solidity and malleability. If there is any truth to the idea of the UFO then it is that it's much stranger and bizarre than anything we could make here on earth. And that's not a vote for the ETH per se but it is acknowledging that witnesses colour the UFO event and whatever the are, they belong to the realm of the strange.

 

[marduk]

Maybe advanced beings like a retro look? Maybe you go through phases and come back to the retro look when you're really advanced? Also, they could be using some kind of holographic projection technology to make it look like something we'd expect it to look. It could also be a fake.

I was thinking the same thing. Like if I had access to super advanced tech to make a spaceship that could look like anything, I'd probably make it look exactly like the Enterprise from the first Star Trek movie.

Because that looked badass.

 

[marduk]

I don't know, but I am disappointed to know they can come all this way, but still require "little flashing lights," "telescopic landing gear," and "port holes for windows" We don't even see this crude of technology on our advanced stealth fighters/bombers.

It would be pretty hilarious if they were actually much less advanced than us.

Except they figured out some fancy propulsion mechanism really early.

Imagine if we discovered antigravity in the 1800's. We'd be cruising the universe in steampunk airships.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Only issue is that the top picture is George Adamski's UFO and looks like a artist's impression. Adamski had been thoroughly debunked, so there is nothing to be learned from his story or artifacts.

 

[Burnt State]

Only issue is that the top picture is George Adamski's UFO and looks like a artist's impression. Adamski had been thoroughly debunked, so there is nothing to be learned from his story or artifacts.

As previously acknowledged; they are human inventions. However, reports from eras are often described with ridiculous aspects of what a ship from space looks like: portholes, anchors, pulley systems, cartoonish rocket ship fins etc. are all part of witness testimony. This tells us something about the looker. And it is what is reported by the witness that is currently fueling the propulsion discussion here. Witness reports inform and define the direction of the discussion. So it's an important consideration, no? Is one aspect of witness reporting any more valid or to be trusted more than the other? These irrational and sociological aspects are certainly part of the equation.

 

[DROBNJAK]

So it's an important consideration, no? Is one aspect of witness reporting any more valid or to be trusted more than the other? These irrational and sociological aspects are certainly part of the equation.

I wouldn't put into the same basket proven fraud trying to make money, with a genuine witness who was reporting incident out of a sense of civic duty. Billy Maier and Adamski were proven frauds. While in numerous other cases we hand multiple witnesses, radar tracks, material evidence, officer on duty etc.

Genuine cases are extremely important and can give us valid clues in reconstructing these crafts. There are numerous features of these crafts that were observed independently by witnesses separated in time and geography.