Something important to me and to us all

Observing lights of different colors on different locations on the same shape does not constitute UFO dissimilarity. Quite often the lights are reported to change color and number on the same UFO within seconds. As I've already quoted the shapes by statistical frequency, I think the similarity and frequencies of UFO shapes have been established. As far as I know, nobody here has assumed or implied any kind of superbeing. I think they are manned by humanoid occupants. The number and undeniable similarity of reports from around the globe over two thousand years bears up to this fact.

I don't think they are smarter than we are. That's the point! What they can do, WE can do. We just have to try. The first obstacle is overcoming this medieval mindset where people refuse to even think about some things because of some ancient myth that forbids it or because some authority declares it to be nonexistent. Face it, we have scientists walking around with the "flat earth" mindset and they dont even realize it.

The most important thing to remember is that UFOs do in fact obey the laws of physics.
They tilt to maneuver, just like helicopters. When they accelerate, the ionization under the hulls changes frequncy. (color)

The data goes on and on in support of this, all you have to do is look for it.

Please, brothers and sisters, dont think that I am trying to simply "win" an argument. I only win if somebody here changes their mind and goes to a library and starts asking questions for themselves.
Never let the TV or somebody else's mouth make up your mind on important subjects like this, do your own research and do your own thinking.
 
Danny,

Like I said earlier, I don't rule out possibilities.

Since you have obviously researched this topic in depth, let me ask you something.........

Have you come up with your own theory(s)?
Or, have you heard or read any theory(s) that you tend to lean towards?

Of course they would be guesses and such, but guesses that make more sense to you than others (when comparing all of your gathered readings and findings).

Seriously, I would be interested to hear what you have to say :)
 
I have some theories, but I have tried to base them only on the reliably reported facts.

Who are they?
UFO's have been observed sampling soil, water, wild and domesticated plants, wild and domesticated animals and even humans.
There have been concentrations of activity near nuclear weapon silos and nuclear power plants and also over mines, but so far, the mines have all been for different minerals, such as iron and beryllium. Owing to this, I am inclined to agree with Paul Hill of NASA that the aliens who visit us are basically scientists, explorers. One of the reasons for their aloofness is not a mystery to me. As a social scientist, I am well aware of the need to minimize contact with a society under study.

How do the ships work?
I agree with Dr Oberth that the ships utilize gravity for propulsion and for air-flow control. (its all a part of the same field effects) Many people believe that these ships contain some kind of advanced nuclear reactors that convert matter into energy at 100% efficiency. In doing so, they release some kind of gravitational energy.
I disagree with that theory, personally. I think there is a reason that so many of these ships have the same basic profile. I think that they have discovered some means of reflecting, refracting and magnifying gravity in the same way that we do these things with light. I think they may be giant contact lenses that focus gravity the way our little contact lenses focus light.

I think the hulls are composite, a main frame of aluminum with tiles of Mg26 that do the reflecting work. in 1960, a man named Ray Hawks observed a saucer to hover and said that "a metallic tile was worked inward from the upper hull of the ship, some bright blue smoke exited the hole and a new tile was worked back into place" then the ship took off into the clouds.

Where do they come from?
That has beena big question that very few people would even want to guess about. However, there was a "star map" drawn by claimed abductee Betty Hill that an astronomer studied and deciphered. The map she drew, that she said the aliens showed to her, did not map any known constellation. That was because the map included Earth and several other systems. Betty's drawn map turned out to be pretty accurate and basically, there's no way in hell she could have just guessed and made it up. I think there are some interesting wesbites of this subject out there.
 
I saw an X File episode where Fox Mulder pointed his semi-auto service pistol at an Alien and it wouldn't fire. I don't recall if it clicked uselessly or wouldn't click at all.

Since then I've wondered with more energy than usual what weapon would be best against a life form with the technology of FTL travel. Now, FTL travel capacity does not neccesarily mean either, 'advanced' moral and intellectual development as we would define them, or depraved and evil. There probably would be a huge variance of Alien abilities. So what weapon would still work, no matter what? No matter how smart 'they' are, what beams, devices, guns or force fields employed, what weapon could a human person rely upon that is so simple it slips beneath the 'radar' of the aggressive Alien? When it absolutely, positively, must deliver a mortal blow......I vote the khuk, the large bore revolver or rifle, or in case of magnetic blocking or fields grabbing the metal of those weapons, a simple bow and arrow.

Is it possible or practical an Alien or alien space craft would have the technology to prevent the cylinder of a revolver from turning, and the ignition event sending a large heavy slug into the target?

I see Billy Jack in my mind's eye confronted by corrupt Cops. Something like, "You will get me, but you know what? I'm going to kick you right there, on your chiin, and there aint a damn thing you can do about it." Sure enough, in the movie, Billy Jack does land the blow, too fast for the Sheriff to stop, even though he knew it was coming.

Alright 'mental giant', All-Powerful One; you may be able to conquer the Earth, but right now, in my livingroom, I'm going to blow a hole right through your chest cavity with this 41 mag. A 210 gr semi wadcutter hollow point, at 1400 fps, will impact with 1000 foot pounds of energy. I'll die, you'll plant a worm in my brain, telepathy will fry my circuits,you'll put me in a fugue state, the house is a cinder and all our cars burnt metal sticks: But This Cylinder Is Going To Turn Round And The Ignition Event Will Occur.

That is my Alien defense plan. About as far out there as you can get. I try to think of all possibilites, and aliens are one of them.
 
Munk
I wish you hadnt brought up TV fiction. I will mention this about weapons from the data :

Anti-saucer
Apparently, our early radar installations caused both the Roswell and several other UFO crashes. The rumor is that powerful radar causes some kind of control or propulsion failure in saucers. Not many people know that Roswell was the location of a massive array of radar installations because it also happened to be the world's first nuclear bomber base. (1947 - only two years after the war)

In the early days of radar, the power levels were far beyond what was necessary. Radar went some 200 miles out and up (into space) and not just in the general region that the radar was supposed to cover. Since then, the power of radar has been signifcantly reduced.

anti- personnel:
There was a report from South America about a man getting into a fight with some "occupants." (many witnesses) Apparently the man drew a knife and stabbed at the occupant, but it would not penetrate the cloth covering its body. Now, if they applied the gravity lens property on a small-scale, then they could have made cloth that was a barrier against everything from air, to radiation and certainly against a knife.
The ultimate armor... (except against a strong radar signal)

As to bullets, well, there is also a pretty well documented report of a ship landing on a military base and an occupant was shot and killed by an M.P. with a 30 carbine.
 
Some gunwriter once said, 'Who likes the 30 Carbine? Just people is all."





munk
 
I admire this thread, the intelligent discussion about the possibilities, and the discussion of the best tools to use against an advanced species.

My gun talk is both deadly serious and wry. I can just see the hammer falling and the look in the eyes of an Alien, "oh shit; primitive ape has a tool thingie about to hurt me."



munk
 
The pre assumption:

I've made a presumption that any sophisticated weapons system might be rendered impotent against an aggressive species with FTL travel tech, while primitive weapons would work, - that's the postulate, the theory. It's interesting to speculate. I might be wrong.


munk
 
Im sorry, Munk, I thought you were trying to take out some of my steam. (which is often necessary)

Seriously, though, I think any weapon will work if it applied to the flesh.
These are not gods, they are people. They have some impressive technology, but a head shot is a head shot.

Against their ships and similarly "shielded" items like metallic clothing, I doubt our conventional weapons would do any good. (there are many reports of people shooting at the ships only to hear the ricochet.)

But against flesh and bone, a knife will cut them as a knife will cut us. Otherwise, they wouldn't wear metallic clothing, right?

This might be pretty important to think about on a larger scale: One of the main pruposes of the govt (or megacorporations that have governmental complicity) who have been studying the recovered materials may have been :
a. reverse engineering the materials for our use
b. trying to determine how we may defeat it in case :
1. we need to fight them
2. some other country figures out their technology and we have to fight them instead
 
It's a very good idea to come up with theories of our own and speculate. These are vital conditions in describing what we observe. However, I would like to say something to the effect of one step at a time....we should first focus on factually demonstrating the existence of UFOs (which, in my humble opinion, is both possible and probable). Once we're there, we can move on to the next step of figuring out purpose, motivation, etc, of these things. I believe that even assuming they're some sort of crafts at all might be going too far at this point.

I still maintain that, from my personal real life experiences and those shared by good friends, there is considerable dissimilarity between UFOs. The consistent feature, of course, is that they're unkown, which for our argument, is probably enough.

I would like to say that there is something, even if that something might be genuinely all in our heads, that needs explaining. If there really are no physical saucer-craft, etc, then why do so many people see them, or think they see them. This is just as important a question, if we reject the initial hypothesis that what we observe is real. Science is in the business of describing and explaining what we observe, and its effectiveness is measured in predictive success. That said, there's a very REAL event occurring, regardless of the validity of the UFO sightings themselves, that receives an unusually small amount of attention from professional scientists (including psychologists).
With our attention turned to scientific success, we should be able to test our hypothesis--we should, at some point, be able with some accuracy, perhaps predict where sightings are more likely to occur, and when--perhaps even the shape of "craft" there. I'm sure there are other ways to examine the situation, but that's just an example. We can measure progress this way.

Lastly, I would say that we should probably not use the analogy of how believing there aren't aliens visiting us is similar to believing the earth is flat quite awhile back. That is to say that, without good evidence, there's no reason to believe the earth is not, in fact, flat. That, if you could not demonstrate to me evidence to the contrary, believing in a flat earth is not a bad idea. Of course, when irrefutable evidence is posted, then it would be a very poor idea to retain the flat earth ideas. It is possible that this analogy is correct, but it should not affect us unless there is convincing and consistent evidence to the contrary. Science is a very skeptical thing...even on allegedly less far out ideas with their premises based mathematically as opposed to on film or from eye witness reports, scientists actively attempt to shoot the ideas down. If the idea survives the onslaught, it's probably quite valid, and worthy of building on. As stated earlier, there are some pretty significant consequences to building more theories on faulty premises down the road, which occasionally requires major revisions in science. It is nonetheless true that the discovery of conscience beings outside of humans might require such a revision anyway.

Believe me, I have "new" ideas being shot down left and right quite often here at TCU...just something we have to contend with. But it's nice to have the screening before the ideas get out.
 
No, Danny, I want this thread to keep going. It is very neat. I am darned serious about weapon choice.
There might be surprises.

An all plastic gun would not last long, but it would last long enough to send projectiles down range. Cartridge cases are brass, primer cups react to magnetic force, though, so we'd have to have a non-steel primer cup.

Black or smokeless powder weapons may be so far in the alien's past or unknown to them that they are effective.
And I like the Bow and Arrow. Danny, is there any way to stop a arrow or a slug? I mean, if you can postulate about FTL travel, there must be theoretical physics about that.

Danny, do you remember when we first met, I told you then I'd done a lot of thinking about this? I wasn't kidding.


thanks
munk
 
Artfully,
I think on the whole I can agree with your last post. (except for the dissimilarity thing, the reports files indicate similarity on a large scale)

Munk,
If we can control gravity, that is, if we can cause a uniform acceleration of space within a confined, controlled field, then we can stop a bullet or an arrow in the air. (The so-called "tractor beam" effect)

Do you see how all of this seems to be related to the same basic idea? That's why I like my "gravity lens" theory so much, because it seamlessly explains so many observed behaviors and descriptions. Not only that, but it explains effects that I hadnt even thought of until I encountered them in other reports, like the super-powerful telescope effect described by Adamski and Lazar and several other people. Now, this may be a stretch, but there is, right now, a thing called "gravitational microlensing." This is a technique where astronomers use the gravity of other planets to magnify light from distant stars.
I know it's not exactly the same, but it does suggest that my theory may be possible.
 
Darn. And intuitively, I think you are right; it's going to be a simple intrinsic principle from which all kinds of other tech derives. It will alter us when we get it. It might be the control of gravity.

Danny; is there any weapon against a 'tractor' beam, then?

A laser?


munk
 
Well, if the rumors are true, then powerful radar may have some disruptive effect.
There are various wavelengths and frequncies at work, and who knows exactly what and how it all interacts, but we have a rough idea, and that's enough to get to work figuring it all out.

It might be that you could carry a microwave element in your hands and that might disrupt the field in some way, I honestly don't know.

they have other technology than this, Im certain, but I think the basic idea is here. Gravity, as the basic energy of the universe, can be focused, magnified, reflected and refracted, just the way that we do so with light in all of it's manifestations. Not only that, I believe that Gravity is in fact faster than light. Gravity is acceleration, but it has no detectable radiation. All other forms of energy have radiation. I believe that we will dsicover that gravity is the basic energy of the universe, it has no mass and it has no radiation, only velocity. Light is said to be nealry massless and to be the ultimate velocity, yet light is affected by gravity, so clearly, there is something interesting going on. I think we will eventually have to redefine some of our basic terms. There's no reason that we can't, after all, Einstein did most of his calculations without realizing that the Universe was expanding. all of his work had a basic flaw in its premise. Now, most of the consequences were minor and most of his work has proven correct, but he was not omniscient and most people do not really know what he was talking about anyway!
 
Just in case this all works out someday, I'd like to name this gravity lens idea the "Fletcher Effect."
My family could use something to be proud of, I havent given them much...

the Fletcher Effect - When pieces of pure Magnesium26 are arranged in a concave lens, separated and contained by an aluminum frame, the combined lensatic shape, when electrified, causes the focussing, magnification, reflection and refraction of gravitational energy.


that may be a lump of BS, but It felt like it needed to be put forth and clarified. If it turns out to be true, then maybe this will give me something to be proud of.
 
danny, i sent one of my minions back to the future to get a copy of this for your information. don't let anyone know tho, it may change the future if it gets out.
Danny.jpg
 
Energy is a hard term to apply to gravity...it is the ability of a system to perform work. But, if you maintain 100% efficency, you will only get the power you put into gravity back when whatever you toss comes back down. Kind of a simplistic explanation, but basically, within the system as a whole, you can't get energy out of gravity. However, if you redefine system, as to say, the planet earth, then the gravitational effects outside of our system (space) can give us energy, when say, some large object flings itself into the planet.
Gravity has great mechanical implications, like, pressured water towers for instances, though.

The curvature of light around huge gravitational bodies makes it tempting to attribute mass to light. However, it appears that it's actually the curvature of spacial geometry that redirects the light on some level. There are some equations to describe some other attributes. It gets a little complex after that.
There's an identity going on in the olllll e=mc^2 equation, but that's actually relativistic mass and isn't the same thing as conventional mass. You can go to invariant mass with m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}, in that famous thought experiment, but it's kind of a weird effect...the light still should have no real mass, but the mass of the theoretical box should be increased. Okay, case in point, light has no mass as we think of it.

The "speed" of gravity is a reasonably conterversial idea, and I happen to hold some radical opinions. For this reason, I'm not going to go into it, because most scientists would probably disagree with me. And I'm not a professional physicist, so my opinion is probably less valid anyway.

I haven't really seen any evidence of being able to modify gravity in the ways you refer to...it's difficult to imagine within Einstein's framework of spacial geometry.

As for the core source of energy in the universe, it appears to be substantially weaker than intermolecular and subtatomic forces. As a sidenote, I often amuse myself at my physicist breatheren's expense by calling gravity and other natural forces magic. It seems just as valid an explanation as they offer, in all honesty. Of course, if we're to believe current scientific theory, all these things are going to be brought together in a grand unified field theory, or whatever the pop science terminology for it is this week. I tend to believe this is also the case. I like to believe that this is all simpler than we make it, and at the core, there is some fundamental rule or two and we can extrapolate everything else out of it. But that might just be my fantasy.

In regards to the defense debate....I believe that if your opponent has FTL technology, the jig is up and it's time to plead for mercy. It wouldn't be difficult to destroy the planet with our current technology...it wouldn't even have to be a fancy method. Take one of those flying saucers, put a brick on the gas pedal and jump out while it's pointed for olll Gaia.

I'm also curious to what unique effects for Mg 26 you have in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top