UFOs

Well, this seems to be a very different kind of UFO sighting than I’ve ever read. No location is given, except for Colorado, and it occurred May 8^th, 2011. It’s quite a detailed observation, with neat description!  Click here.

Apparently the UFO sighted at Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock is…a hoax.  That’s fine, it doesn’t bother me. After the explanations offered in the analysis of the shot (which is all I ask–that someone do some serious analysis on these kinds of things), I can see it being a hoax. But what kinda fascinates me is how people get so emotionally polarized over this stuff. Why is that? Look, either something is or it isn’t. How can any of us make off-the-wall conclusions–in either direction–without informed investigation?

And why are we all so quick to dismiss incidents as hoaxes or because hailed as hoaxes, and get in people’s faces when they want to believe in their validity? Where is all this emotion coming from? There’s nothing wrong in wanting to believe, but why all the outright righteous vitriol?

Many get upset because they don’t believe objects can maneuver like what has been shown, hairpin turns, etc. A couple years ago, I read Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.  I’m the first to admit I can’t spit back most of what I read there, it’s been a heckuva long time since I’ve messed with any hardcore (university level) physics, and certainly not at the level this book works through, but I could (for the most part) see and follow what was being presented, even intuitively follow some of it from the old College Days, and it was mind blowing. See my previous post on this subject (and check this one out, too), but herein are explained the fields of subquantum kinetics, and electrogravitic propulsion. Area of physics explored at least back in the 1920s. The Coandă Effect, even. And (according to this book) these craft have already been developed or are currently under development.

It is subquantum kinetics and electrogravitic propulsion that actually do explain how objects can maneuver “as they’ve been observed” and not liquefy their occupants–if there are any occupants (we assume they’re manned craft, but they might not all be…).

As best as I can relate it, here’s the short answer from Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion:  the direction of travel is polarized through ionization (the direction of travel is preceded, perhaps better described as “enveloped” by, a cloud of positive ions, and the trailing direction in negative ions), using an extremely high-voltage power source. The positive charges are constantly and immediately replenished to replace those charges leaving/dispersing from the ion cloud. The short answer (and, again, no, I can’t whiteboard this, am just trying to relay it as best I can) is that this creates a gravity well/gradient in the direction of travel, kinda like riding a wave, where the object travels into the well/gradient. As the book says and I really have to restudy it, this wavelike distortion of the gravity field is similar to a surfer riding a wave, and the physics of it is that it pulls on all particles of the object-in-question (i.e., matter) in this system equally–which means that the ship and all its contents are acted upon equally by the force of the object’s travel, like a “local” gravity. The ship and its occupants would feel no more G-forces than what is currently felt standing on Earth. A local gravity field has been created in and around the ship. Such “impossible” maneuvers have now become possible….

Sheesh, hope I did that explanation justice.

And there are other methods of propulsion that behave similarly, like microwave and electromagnetic propulsion. And while their movement is not as “clean” and gravitationally unhindered as electrogravitics, there are some dips and banking involved in these methods of propulsion during travel. Personally I always wonder if such propulsion would not be affected by weather, and I don’t see how not, after a certain point, i.e., high winds, but I’m not a propulsion/aerospace engineer.

From the abovementioned book, I also pull the following quote:  (from page 77):  “...the biggest deterrent to scientific progress is a refusal of some people, including scientists, to believe that things which seem amazing can really happen.”

People are people.

To this I add:  if we knew everything, we’d know what these are.

And…

Just because everything can be faked doesn’t mean everything is.

Sounds like “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you,” huh?

So, yes, all images can be tricked, but that doesn’t mean all images are tricked. We have to use reason.  Yes, the physics does seem to go contradictory to what has been traditionally taught in schools (including universities), and yes there will unfortunately continue to be perpetrated hoaxes, but don’t be so quick to judge one way or the other. There are sciences and engineering going on out there no one is supposed to be privy to, for at least one very good reason (national security), and this stuff is not being taught in schools and universities most likely for the same reason, at least according to this Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion.

Okay, so, let’s review:

Objects have already been developed that do travel as portrayed by traditionally sighted UFOs.

Just because everything can be faked doesn’t mean everything is faked.

And if we (each and every one of us) knew everything…we’d know what these things are.

So…show of hands:

Who knows everything?