UFO Design

[Burnt State]

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.

I don't think there's a same basket at all for these. I belive the original post that commented on this strange feature of portholes in the ships merely used the Adamski knock off as a comment on what actually entails a progressive ship. There's a huge gap between your discussion with Marduk regarding possible propulsion systems of advanced craft and the retro design features we have of supposedly alien craft. How can we reconcile these theoretical examinations of what drives these ships when reports of ships contain such surreal and bizarre features in shape and motion that appear to be generated specifically by witnesses in a time and place. Aubeck's work also speaks to this notion in that what colours the UFO craft is very sociological. If we are to take the motions of ships into account of what they are then so must we account for what they look like as both are driven primarily by witnesses. And witnesses in disparate locations do report similarities but also vast differences. In listening to The Paracast we are often reminded that in some sightings by groups of people some in the crowd don't even see the ship.

So all I'm saying is that before we start elaborating on design potential the whole miasma of strange sighting reports and all their complex differences and weirdnesses must also be accounted for. How can we begin to name a propulsion system when differentiation and surreal aspects of what the ship looks like and does originates most often from the same source - a witness.

 

[marduk]

I don't think there's a same basket at all for these. I belive the original post that commented on this strange feature of portholes in the ships merely used the Adamski knock off as a comment on what actually entails a progressive ship. There's a huge gap between your discussion with Marduk regarding possible propulsion systems of advanced craft and the retro design features we have of supposedly alien craft. How can we reconcile these theoretical examinations of what drives these ships when reports of ships contain such surreal and bizarre features in shape and motion that appear to be generated specifically by witnesses in a time and place. Aubeck's work also speaks to this notion in that what colours the UFO craft is very sociological. If we are to take the motions of ships into account of what they are then so must we account for what they look like as both are driven primarily by witnesses. And witnesses in disparate locations do report similarities but also vast differences. In listening to The Paracast we are often reminded that in some sightings by groups of people some in the crowd don't even see the ship.

So all I'm saying is that before we start elaborating on design potential the whole miasma of strange sighting reports and all their complex differences and weirdnesses must also be accounted for. How can we begin to name a propulsion system when differentiation and surreal aspects of what the ship looks like and does originates most often from the same source - a witness.

Where I'm at is that you can't start reverse engineering something when there isn't even one clear, unambiguous photo or video of whatever it is in action that can be used to reverse engineer anything.

And that's why I say Stanford is full of crap. Begin at the beginning.

There is no hard evidence for this phenomena that is usable for reverse engineering. Therefore, someone who claims that they've figured them out using photos or videos is full of crap.

He treats the evidence as axiomatic when it's anything but.

 

[DROBNJAK]

All I think is: We have imperfect data set, but with strong trends. Its more like legal proof, than like scientific proof. Additionally, we have known laws of physics to filter even better information from this sparsity.

So in one hand you have imperfect data, in other hand you have known physics. These two things combined can give you very solid data.

I personally have applied everyday engineering principles to some UFO photos. From observations on that photo I was able to make predictions of the behavior of other UFOs and these predictions were confirmed in other unrelated cases. This clearly had shown to myself that valuable conclusions can be obtained from imperfect information.

This method is nothing new. Dr. Bruice MacAbiee, Peter Sturrock (professor of physics on Stanford Uni) and Ray Stanford are champions of this approach. who used this method with great results. MUFON itself is now moving towards this approach and trying to acquire some instruments and use expertise of scientists.

Its not true that all the witness testimonials are polluted with modern media. There are reports from medieval Europe & Japan with drawings, reports from 19th century US, reports from colonial Africa. I've seen 17th or 18th century English "magazine" talking about crop circles.

 

[marduk]

Show me one unambiguous photo or video of an anomalous craft exhibiting non-terrestrial performance characteristics that can be used to infer propulsion mechanisms.

Just one.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Well, its going to be subjective. I am going to say this photo is unambiguous, and you are going to say it is ambiguous.

But here it is. This photo is a part of a video published on infamous thirdphaseofthemoon youtube channel.

yellow markings were made by myself.

 

[marduk]

Thirdphaseofmoon?

Are you serious?

 

[DROBNJAK]

OK, that's your personal opinion and your own hype. Not the objective reality. You think that that TPoM is bad. That might and might not be true. That video was not taken by somebody working for TPoM, but by an external contributor.

That means that credibility of TPoM and the photo itself are two uncorrelated variables. Important thing is credibility of contributor, not of TPoM. And that varies from case to case.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that for every 95 fakes, TPoM is displaying 5 real ones. Its like throwing baby with a water, as they say. And the value of the genuine few can be important enough.

Ignore the hype and just look at a photo itself. That's where you'll find what are you looking for.

 

[marduk]

You can't be serious.

That photo has absolutely zero credibility. There's no background, no providence, no size, no nothing.

GIS did point me to your posts in 2015 trying to reverse engineer a 'simple' propulsion system from this thing that could be anything. If you try to reverse engineer hoaxes, you're going to get nonsense.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I am very serious.

You simply trying to impose your own hype. Neither your, nor TPoM's hype has any wight. Its just two opposing hypes.

Without looking into the original file, solely based on TPoM's reputation, nobody can neither prove nor disprove if that video was CGI or not. You are a priori assuming that it is CGI, I am simply taking open-minded stance, because that is a whole point of meeting on this forum.

That photo is part of video, about 1 minute long, that shows many background and foreground objects, like trees, roofs etc. From which diameter can be estimated to be around 6-7m (18-21ft). I just showed the most informative clip, with most internal parts exposed.

Certainly, I tried to make a sense out of engineering aspects shown in the photo, because I've never seen so many of internal components visible. 90% of the conclusions that I made are simply consistent with known aerodynamics and engineering. As a side note, with other 10% of analysis, I suggested that device can be similar to EM Drive, which was getting lots of acceptance at that time. It was simply my best guess.

Of course, the actual propulsion can be completely different than what I said. The main thrust of my analysis was on relationship of various components and aerodynamic effects and any mechanical engineer will 100% confirm what I said.

 

[marduk]

I am very serious.

You simply trying to impose your own hype. Neither your, nor TPoM's hype has any wight. Its just two opposing hypes.

Without looking into the original file, solely based on TPoM's reputation, nobody can neither prove nor disprove if that video was CGI or not. You are a priori assuming that it is CGI, I am simply taking open-minded stance, because that is a whole point of meeting on this forum.

That photo is part of video, about 1 minute long, that shows many background and foreground objects, like trees, roofs etc. From which diameter can be estimated to be around 6-7m (18-21ft). I just showed the most informative clip, with most internal parts exposed.

Certainly, I tried to make a sense out of engineering aspects shown in the photo, because I've never seen so many of internal components visible. 90% of the conclusions that I made are simply consistent with known aerodynamics and engineering. As a side note, with other 10% of analysis, I suggested that device can be similar to EM Drive, which was getting lots of acceptance at that time. It was simply my best guess.

Of course, the actual propulsion can be completely different than what I said. The main thrust of my analysis was on relationship of various components and aerodynamic effects and any mechanical engineer will 100% confirm what I said.

You now carry the burden of proof that the video/picture is real.

I say it's a laughable fake. Along with the rest of the garbage from those guys.

And I'm a guy that believes in this stuff because I've seen them. If you can't convince me, you can't convince anybody.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Yeah, sure, as if I can go to Hawaii, and grab that file from TPoM You just gave me a bit of work to do.

Lets stick with the reason why we gather here and look at that with open-mind. We can't prove either way if it was CGI or not.

Now if one can looks at that video and one applies simple aerodynamics than that craft reveals some astonishing insights. All the aerodynamics analysis suggests that vehicle has two sources of thrust. Now that's very new observation as far as UFOs go.

Than we can ask, are any other known UFO cases have shown that they have 2 sources of thrust? Just to check on corroborating evidence from other independent cases. And indeed I can quote at least four other cases where UFOs were reported hanging in the air sideways, as opposed to usual flat orientation.

OK, that can be CGI, but simple mechanical analysis leads to astonishing cross-confirmation with other completely independent cases.

Here are few examples. Please google image search to check sources:

OK, and here is that thread in OverUnity forum where I published .PDF with more detail:

Disappointingly Practical and Simple EM Propulsion with off-the-shelf Parts.

 

[marduk]

OK.

Let's say those are real.

How can you infer a propulsion system from that? I see no plasma. I see no field effect. No gravity distortion. Nothing.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I don't know how propulsion works. I just assumed that there must be some kind of thrust. It was beyond of the scope of that article.

If the craft had only one thruster than top dome would be designed in only one way. If craft had two thrusters than top dome would need to look different.

Basically there are two openings on the top dome. One opening is quite big, possibly about 1m (3ft), other opening is so tiny it can be barely seen, only about 10cm (1/3ft). Importantly both openings are exactly opposite each other. Small opening can be best observed on the video, although its marked in that .PDF I wrote.

If that dome was traveling horizontally, its leading edge would be pushed down by the incoming air. If dome pointed downward, craft would spontaneously crash into the ground. That reveals the function of the second small 10cm opening. There is a pipe, coming out of the center, pointing directly into the small 10cm opening. Pipe just happens to be exactly in the perfect position to exert counter-torque on the craft, when leading edge is pushed down by incoming air.

What does that tell us, beside that there are two thrusters? It tells us that craft was designed by an engineer who understood aerodynamics. It was an informed design.

Is it a CGI? I can't tell. But the case is more than intriguing.

Personally, I don't believe that ThirdPhaseOfTheMoon has that type of expertise and even more, why would they bother with all the extra work to show pipes, toroids, openings etc. It would be much simpler to draw two metallic dishes, on top of each other, and the desired effect on their audience would be the same.

 

[technomage]

I think UFO propulsion works by KK gravitons that orbit miniature black holes surrounding the UFO. This reduces the inertial mass of the UFO and pulls it into the bulk. Then, the UFO can traverse the bulk in some manner and release the gravitons enabling it to come back from the bulk into our weak membrane. The lower inertial mass created by the orbiting gravitons also enable the UFO to use conventional propulsion to produce extremely high accelerations within our membrane, as possibly seen in the Socorro incident.

 

[DROBNJAK]

Important consequence of the aerodynamic analysis of that TPoM's craft is that it was able to make predictions. It predicted those 3 other UFOs showing in pictures above and few other cases.

 

[DROBNJAK]

I think UFO propulsion works by KK gravitons that orbit miniature black holes surrounding the UFO. This reduces the inertial mass of the UFO and pulls it into the bulk. Then, the UFO can traverse the bulk in some manner and release the gravitons enabling it to come back from the bulk into our weak membrane. The lower inertial mass created by the orbiting gravitons also enable the UFO to use conventional propulsion to produce extremely high accelerations within our membrane, as possibly seen in the Socorro incident.

I might be wrong, but it doesn't sound as if that will fly. Black holes would attract each other and create an avalanche into a bigger black hole. Than the big black hole would suck in the whole craft. Second, black holes would not reduce inertial mass. Inertial mass would stay exactly the same, but black hole can counter gravitational pull and reduce apparent weight.

How is one supposed to control these small black holes? By definition they are the most energetic objects in the universe. How does one create more energy than the universe itself?

Plus, whole string theory is just beautiful mathematics. 11 dimensions? You get stuck with maths? Can't find solution? No problem, just ad more dimension. We are lucky string theorist stopped at 11.

I mean, why bother with String Theory, when good old and proven General Relativity can provide the necessary answers.

 

[Burnt State]

All I think is: We have imperfect data set, but with strong trends. Its more like legal proof, than like scientific proof. Additionally, we have known laws of physics to filter even better information from this sparsity.

So in one hand you have imperfect data, in other hand you have known physics. These two things combined can give you very solid data.

I personally have applied everyday engineering principles to some UFO photos. From observations on that photo I was able to make predictions of the behavior of other UFOs and these predictions were confirmed in other unrelated cases. This clearly had shown to myself that valuable conclusions can be obtained from imperfect information

In looking at these photos and the discussion around imperfect data you must realize that there is no difference between using Adamski's photos to determine propulsion systems than what you are proposing. How can you begin to derive anything of merit from unknown and unconfirmed photos?

Take a look at these critters I saw float through my living room window and into the house. What can be made of them or their propulsion? Are they living or dead, technological, biological or art?

The great problem with much of Ufological history is the construction of theorems based on weak, forged or erroneous data. Imperfect data gets us only to one place - and it's very far away from anything close to what the UFO might be. If there is not stringent approaches to data then all we have is fantasy, wedding cake UFO photos, gulf breeze and third phase of moon shenanigans and nothing more. This is the foundation of UFO consumer culture and really has little to do with the phenomenon itself. This approach is essential to making the UFO'S what we want them to be as opposed to what they are. And that has dominated UFO 'studies' for far too long.

However, I still greatly understand the need to drive theories this way for truly the UFO leaves very little by way of consistent hard core evidence behind, so what the hell. May as well take the ACME approach to catching a Roadrunner when you have so little to work with in the first place.

 

[DROBNJAK]

That's not true at all.

Adamski's photos would not produce any predictions. The TPoM's photo that I've shown had produced prediction that some UFOs have two thrusters and that predictions was proven in subsequent 3 photos and few other cases.

Or take what Stanton Freedman said. Its a proof by overwhelming evidence. In a, say, 17-th century sailors were dying from scurvy. There was overwhelming evidence that if sailors eat lime they didn't get scurvy. Of course, in 17-th century they didn't know about molecules, vitamins, DNA etc. So they didn't have hard proof, but overwhelming evidence was practical enough.

Or even better, Great Britain didn't have a hard proof that Germany is preparing for WWII. But GB had overwhelming evidence that D was about to attack and rightfully GB did its own preparations for the war.

What you are asking for, is that UFO lands in your back-garden and that pilot comes out with PowerPoint and shows you how everything on inside works. Its safe to assume that UFO pilots will never do that. So we better do it on our own.

 

[Burnt State]

The problem is that you are making predictions on something that has no more weight or validity than Adamski. Since when has the third phase team produced anything of merit? The generally held truth of UFO photography is that we have yet to produce a single verifiable image of a UFO. There are many curious images collected over time but not one that can be identified as alien technology in our atmosphere. Everything that proceeds from such images is only as good as the original source.

 

[Burnt State]

Paul Villa's photos = Billy Meier = Adamski.

These are all fake constructions. The only thing to be ascertained from Villa's photos is how he connected the strings to the trees to take his photos. And that's the kind of stuff that Third Phase pumps out routinely.