Jump to content

#fakenews + UFOs = #FUFOs


jcs
 Share

Recommended Posts

Once I figured out how they did it, I didn't want to publish this material. However, it's important that we challenge the people behind these hoaxes. If done by private individuals (vs. govcorp), they are wittingly or unwittingly contributing negatively to the information war. If they are using Kevlar or similar string/thread, that could be very dangerous to light aircraft and airliners. Shot on the 1DX II in 4K (sky video), 24-105F4L and 70-200 F2.8L II, full resolution stills processed in Adobe Camera RAW:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I've seen those in the middle of the Andes in South America, sometimes they are just bags that fly because the sun heats the air inside them but other times i just don't know, like when you zoom in and looks like that. In the places I've seen those there are no drones, at least amateur drones. In fact there is almost no people living there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kirk Tincho said:

Thank you. I've seen those in the middle of the Andes in South America, sometimes they are just bags that fly because the sun heats the air inside them but other times i just don't know, like when you zoom in and looks like that. In the places I've seen those there are no drones, at least amateur drones. In fact there is almost no people living there.

I've seen older footage of UFO 'swarms' that look compelling, especially when they are moving around, from before there were drones and so many UFO hoaxers. I've seen enough footage to believe there is advanced technology flying around, e.g. mass reduction / antigrav / electrogravitics, however there's no evidence these vehicles are extraterrestrial. That said, there is pretty compelling evidence that there have been advanced vehicles flying in the sky before modern history. Who made them and where they are from remain big mysteries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A drone chassis with a mylar balloon could look something like this. We reached the point were real and fake can easily be mistaken, so the visitors better rise up to the challenge. 

5 minutes ago, jcs said:

I've seen older footage of UFO 'swarms' that look compelling, especially when they are moving around, from before there were drones and so many UFO hoaxers. I've seen enough footage to believe there is advanced technology flying around, e.g. mass reduction / antigrav / electrogravitics, however there's no evidence these vehicles are extraterrestrial. That said, there is pretty compelling evidence that there have been advanced vehicles flying in the sky before modern history. Who made them and where they are from remain big mysteries.

Older footage is difficult to fake but it's funny that when we reach the point with new technology, older one can have better explanations. The sudden turns could be explained by not having a living creature subjected to g-forces and be controlled remotely. And far distance communication could be done through an ansible thing with spooky quantum particles. Who knows, we're getting closer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ivanhurba said:

A drone chassis with a mylar balloon could look something like this. We reached the point were real and fake can easily be mistaken, so the visitors better rise up to the challenge. 

Older footage is difficult to fake but it's funny that when we reach the point with new technology, older one can have better explanations. The sudden turns could be explained by not having a living creature subjected to g-forces and be controlled remotely. And far distance communication could be done through an ansible thing with spooky quantum particles. Who knows, we're getting closer. 

After having written a few physics-based computer simulations (flight, driving, and virtual reality), I can tell you that vehicles that can make instant turns and stops effectively have no mass. Very small, lightweight objects with high-thrust systems can approximate this kind of motion, however 15+ foot objects going incredible speeds then stopping instantly defy explanation if these objects have mass (vs. a massless optical projection). The theory is these objects don't subject their payloads/passengers to any g-forces at all. They are either warping space, and thus the object isn't even moving (space is warped around the object, creating effective motion without any velocity and thus no momentum), or somehow partially or fully shielding the object from interacting with the Higgs Field (or whatever is fundamentally really going on) to massively reduce apparent mass. Without additional tricks up their sleeves, objects that have effectively zero mass travel at the speed of light, so they'd need some kind of additional shielding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jcs said:

I've seen older footage of UFO 'swarms' that look compelling, especially when they are moving around, from before there were drones and so many UFO hoaxers. I've seen enough footage to believe there is advanced technology flying around, e.g. mass reduction / antigrav / electrogravitics, however there's no evidence these vehicles are extraterrestrial. That said, there is pretty compelling evidence that there have been advanced vehicles flying in the sky before modern history. Who made them and where they are from remain big mysteries.

Most of those "UFOs" feature movement that is not going to happen physically due to the tremendous forces involved. If there really were extraterrestrials they would be subject to the same limitations as us and there is no reason to fly with such extreme movement changes in any case.

The rest of your musing are nonsense. Even if there was some special technology to protect the occupants from the consequences of such extreme maneuvers, the effects outside due to displacement would still be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tugela said:

Most of those "UFOs" feature movement that is not going to happen physically due to the tremendous forces involved. If there really were extraterrestrials they would be subject to the same limitations as us and there is no reason to fly with such extreme movement changes in any case.

The rest of your musing are nonsense. Even if there was some special technology to protect the occupants from the consequences of such extreme maneuvers, the effects outside due to displacement would still be there.

Thanks for the physics lesson, tugela. Sounds like you're an expert on warp drives and gravity shielding. Maybe you can explain yourself in more detail how what you propose is possible? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/

Response algorithm: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2011/04/01/matchers-and-mismatchers-how-to-work-with-impossib

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jcs said:

IThat said, there is pretty compelling evidence that there have been advanced vehicles flying in the sky before modern history. 

Pray Tell...

2 hours ago, jcs said:

Thanks for the physics lesson, tugela. Sounds like you're an expert on warp drives and gravity shielding. Maybe you can explain yourself in more detail how what you propose is possible? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/

Response algorithm: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2011/04/01/matchers-and-mismatchers-how-to-work-with-impossib

So because there are proposed theories of changing the geometry of space and that it could theoretically be possible, you conclude that UFOs exist and have existed for quite some time? Seems pretty far-reaching to me. Something something reverse causality. Oh and look! More NLP pseudoscience...

Remember, kids, keep an open mind but not so open your brains fall out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jcs said:

Thanks for the physics lesson, tugela. Sounds like you're an expert on warp drives and gravity shielding. Maybe you can explain yourself in more detail how what you propose is possible? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/

Response algorithm: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2011/04/01/matchers-and-mismatchers-how-to-work-with-impossib

If something was warping space so that it was inbetween reality it would not be visible since it would occupy effectively an infinitesimal point in real space. If it did occupy real space and worked by forcing matter that existed already apart, the extreme pressures generated outside the object as it did so would result in a fireball and sonic boom in the sorts of velocities commonly shown in extreme UFO video. So whatever is shown in those videos, they are not "warping space". You might be able to get away with that in a vacuum with minimal consequences, but in a planetary atmosphere there absolutely would be consequences.

Videos of objects apparently at some far distance showing extreme movement are fake. They are actually much closer and much smaller than that, but are presented as something else. Alternatively, you could get the same apparent behavior by projecting a narrow beam of light on to some sort of reflective surface to fool people who otherwise might think it was a real object at distance.

And then there is the logical question, what would be the point of a "craft" making maneuvers like that in the first place? It would serve no purpose and would require extreme engineering that otherwise is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@iamoui @tugela once the cat was out of the bag that warp drives were theoretically possible, it's important to understand that there is an information war going on for all kinds of reasons, usually fundamentally about power and control, which relates to money and wealth. Here's a paper where the scientists admit the warp drive is possible, however it will wipe out everything in front of it upon arrival: https://phys.org/news/2012-03-warp-killer-downside.html. During product development all sorts of problems are encountered and solved. This could be simply disinformation to keep people from believing that we or aliens can use warp drives now that it is commonly understood to be theoretically possible.

Take a look at these incidents. The objects showed up visually and on radar and there was a big FAA/CIA/FBI etc. investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident. There are many more links and videos, surprised Wikileaks didn't try to debunk the flight 1628 incident. Were they secret military craft of something else? Either way, these objects displayed technology way beyond what we have publicly today. Philip J. Klass (paid by the CIA) "debunked" this case. Why does the CIA need to pay people to do debunkings? Maybe it would be fun if the CIA played the other side too, and promoted fake UFO/alien stories? They did that too: http://www.miragemen.com/. So now there's a great divide into believing what is real or not. Was that their ultimate purpose?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_incidenthttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11415831/Rendlesham-Forest-UFO-incident-truth-conspiracies.html

Here's one from 1561: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg. Maybe the entire city was on powerful psychedelics? Else something was in the skies we can't explain.

Back to this thread's video, If you look at the stills I included at the end of the video, you'll see that the objects are balloons:

b2.thumb.jpg.d12e6c01d6e927a180e6e6507668993d.jpg

img_5946edc361cd9.thumb.jpg.79edc179f5f4f2ab85c568427da2942e.jpg

GB1.thumb.jpg.5cf9b76d7c793ee0d3c5a79511f3c4fc.jpg

The bright spheres for the double weather balloon object appear to be simply reflective spheres. Reflective red, green, and yellow mylar also appears to be present. The solo yellow object appears to be a children's animal mylar balloon, perhaps a lion? Since these objects didn't drift (that I could see), they were either held with string (most likely, as it's cheap and easy, even Kevlar string) or some kind of drone tech. While I wasn't able to capture on video, there were also four objects with bright lights/reflectors that moved in formation nearby one of the larger balloon objects. They moved about as fast as drones or RC aircraft, so that is the most likely explanation if the hoax was private/corp. If government, it could be more exotic (much higher budget).

Why do people hoax UFOs? The commercial reason is to sell UFO and alien related products. The government reason is it's part of the information war. The Rendlesham Forest incident and Roswell could have been psy-ops performed on their own people. The official Roswell story has changed so many times it appears they are hiding something or they are acting like they are hiding something: classic psy-ops either way.

Now China wants in on the fun: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/765861/China-beaten-Nasa-warp-drive-technology

Gravity-superconductor/magnetic-field interaction has been publicly studied for over 30 years (probably much longer, dating back to WWII, perhaps even over 12,000 years ago when comet impacts caused massive floods and destruction, wiping out the advanced civilizations at that time. Study ancient massive stones structures and pyramids, perhaps start with http://gobeklitepe.info/). These effects, while publicly reported to be small, are real: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281439915_Gravity-Superconductors_Interactions_Historical_Background. This looks fake (could be an actual radar return test: conventional jet circles, then splits off, TR-3Bs then turn to reflect max radar (camera direction). The initial separation impulse of the two objects is impossible without gravity/mass reduction/warp or CGI fakery), however it's a good demo of what the TR-3B reportedly looks like: http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/military-aircraft/tr-3b-aurora-anti-gravity-spacecrafts/2860314511001. If the US gov has this tech, they don't want anyone to know for sure either way: psy-ops. Study Operation High Jump and what is currently going on in Antarctica- something special or more psy-ops?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is someone trying to debunk Ben Rich's comment about having the technology to take E.T. home: https://noriohayakawa.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/ben-rich-erroneously-misquoted-by-the-ufo-community/. If you're not familiar with Ben Rich (and Kelly Johnson), this book is amazing history: https://www.amazon.com/Skunk-Works-Personal-Memoir-Lockheed/dp/B011M8DBI6/. The debunker tries to make the case Rich was joking. Read the comments and you'll see that people aren't buying it. Many ex-military radar operators have testified and many more are willing to testify about objects doing impossible things. Mainstream media reported about UFOs shutting down nukes as reported by military officials: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html. More CIA trickery? Maybe, maybe not. That's part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/hydro/winterhaven.pdf This appears to be real: TT Brown had published results in 1929. In 1952 electrogravitics were being worked on openly in the military-industrial complex until around 1960 when it went silent: probably after a major breakthrough. More info here: http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm.

Given the evidence and the fact that the intelligence community along with the MSM have played both sides, it's likely we Earthlings have working electrogravitic vehicles in service today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jcs said:

After having written a few physics-based computer simulations (flight, driving, and virtual reality), I can tell you that vehicles that can make instant turns and stops effectively have no mass. Very small, lightweight objects with high-thrust systems can approximate this kind of motion, however 15+ foot objects going incredible speeds then stopping instantly defy explanation if these objects have mass 

A linear track to your eyes does not equate with a linear track in 3d space. This happens all the time with meteorites. Objects moving away or towards you appear stationary. An object changing direction thus appears to change speed when it is not. 

Quote

. mass reduction / antigrav / electrogravitics

You're sitting on the flip side of the ufo coin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jcs said:

http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/hydro/winterhaven.pdf This appears to be real: TT Brown had published results in 1929. In 1952 electrogravitics were being worked on openly in the military-industrial complex until around 1960 when it went silent: probably after a major breakthrough. More info here: http://users.erols.com/iri/TTBROWN2.htm.

Given the evidence and the fact that the intelligence community along with the MSM have played both sides, it's likely we Earthlings have working electrogravitic vehicles in service today.

My Gosh…..Corey Good is just a child compared to you my friend!!! ;=)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orangenz said:

A linear track to your eyes does not equate with a linear track in 3d space. This happens all the time with meteorites. Objects moving away or towards you appear stationary. An object changing direction thus appears to change speed when it is not. 

You're sitting on the flip side of the ufo coin. 

With your eyes and standard projections equations, 3D linear motion projects to 2D linear motion. Non-linear or curved motion projects to curves or a line (edge planar view).

X_2D = X_3D*S/Z_3D

Y_2D = Y_3D*S/Z_3D

If you mark start and stop points in 3D and projected 2D, the time to traverse both points is equal. At one limit, an object directly approaches the viewer and appears to have zero motion (though its size is changing). Motion perpendicular to the view vector maximizes 2D motion. Radar systems have a concept called 'cosine error' that deals with this issue when estimating speed.

Let's take a meteor in the sky (meteorites tend to be stationary ;)). It's traveling at 90 degrees to our viewpoint, so its apparent speed is maximized, and it zips by and hits the ground somewhere (note the angle is changing as it goes by, appearing to slow down slightly due to the angle change, but never appears to abruptly turn or stop). What would it take for the meteor to appear to stop in mid air while maintaining its velocity? An instant right-angle turn toward or away from the view vector. An instant right angle turn is impossible without advanced technology: same problem with actually stopping instantly. Any physical object interacting in the so-called Higgs field can't make instantaneous changes in motion. Not without some way of changing the field interaction, such as through electrogravitics (which have been publicly verified in lab tests, and NASA is public about its experiments as well: https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/. The question is how far have they come in developing this technology in secret).

UFO is simply any Unidentified Flying Object. We tend to classify sightings from mundane to exotic: a bird/plane/balloon/drone/star/planet/meteor, advanced military vehicle, advanced breakaway civilization vehicle, alien technology (this universe), extra-dimensional technology (parallel universe).

What's more interesting these days is the information war regarding UFOs: hoaxers out to make a buck and power structures using disinformation (both ways!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hijodeibn said:

My Gosh…..Corey Good is just a child compared to you my friend!!! ;=)

lol I met David Wilcock (just a photoshoot for a movie premiere) and am familiar with Corey Goode. They and others have uncovered the same information I found today with a little bit of googling. While a secret space program is possible (and even probable if the military has mastered electrogravitics and warp technology), I would look at everything they say very carefully: verify with other sources of information. They have a bit of a reputation unfortunately, so if they say something that might be real, it can act to discredit things that actually are real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jcs said:

lol I met David Wilcock (just a photoshoot for a movie premiere) and am familiar with Corey Goode. They and others have uncovered the same information I found today with a little bit of googling. While a secret space program is possible (and even probable if the military has mastered electrogravitics and warp technology), I would look at everything they say very carefully: verify with other sources of information. They have a bit of a reputation unfortunately, so if they say something that might be real, it can act to discredit things that actually are real.

I don´t know what to think about Corey Good really, but some information they disclosed has real facts like the Nazis in south america and Antarctic, it looks like they made a mix between real and fictional information, certainly there is a secret program in the US government, but I can't believe the level of technology achieved in these few years is what Corey is describing, but you know, I could be surprised….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

I don´t know what to think about Corey Good really, but some information they disclosed has real facts like the Nazis in south america and Antarctic, it looks like they made a mix between real and fictional information, certainly there is a secret program in the US government, but I can't believe the level of technology achieved in these few years is what Corey is describing, but you know, I could be surprised….

Yeah they stretch things a bit to make sales (actually a LOT), that's their day job I guess. Even if they made it all up (secret space program and related ideas), it's still possible once one has this kind of technology available. That's why it's important for everyone interested to do their own due diligence and research.

Speaking of due diligence, this guy may be behind the balloon UFOs in LA and elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTLx8GKMC6G2P9p-Y7hBmLw

Others have caught on too: https://wwwmacsufonews.blogspot.com/2012/05/ufo-robert-bingham-exposed-hoax-exposed.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with anyone believing this speculative metaphysics if that is what they need to do. But it is "belief". It isn't "physics" or science - there is no "evidence" or reproducible fact or experimental hypothesis. In the strict use of the term it is non-sense. Appealing to "quantum-this" or "quantum-that"  might look good but really just exhibits an ignorance of quantum mechanics (which by definition operates at a quantum scale). The Higgs field is not, as far as I am aware, something one can opt out of.  Of course, much like any religious belief system, the absence of verification also implies the absence of empirical falsification hence the comparative ease with which adherents can fabricate arguments which prima facie support their views: "of course you can't see aliens, they wear invisibility cloaks".

Personally I'm happy to live within the boundaries of what is real and watch what is not on the big screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...