Jump to content

#fakenews + UFOs = #FUFOs


jcs
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, jcs said:

(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?

They are burning and exploding as they go through the atmosphere which appears almost as a solid of non-uniform density at those speeds. This is nothing new. It's good that you're anti-alien conspiracy, but you seem to have replaced it with an equally pseudo-scientific alternative. The key is to find non-conspiracy sources when seeking answers. That probably requires a wider reading schedule as well to determine what words like velocity mean. 

On something completely different, this article is hilarious and very clever. https://www.quora.com/Even-when-proof-exists-that-the-moon-landing-was-a-hoax-why-do-school-textbooks-continue-to-glorify-the-Apollo-mission/answer/Patrick-Germain 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Snowfun @Orangenz where in this thread did I mention quantum anything? The math and physics I referenced I am familiar with enough to write a rigid+soft body and fluid dynamics based internet multiplayer racing simulation which can hide over 300ms of lag. And the physical surface is defined by piece-wise continuous 3D cubic polynomial surfaces, for which I perform a Newton-search ray-cast to find the tire contact patch points. That's why I called it Amazing Curves. All other games ray-intersect polygons then smooth things out. I do the opposite, ray cast a smooth surface, then apply a bump/displacement map to make rough when needed. This all runs in real-time, 100+ fps on modest hardware (over 10 years old). I wrote this from scratch- all the physics is custom using using a custom energy-accurate integrator (engine sound came from a Z06 Corvette I owned):

@Orangenz perhaps I misunderstood but it sounded like you were saying I don't understand velocity? As in v = x*m/s? Or a = f/m, v1 = v0 + 1/2a*dt^2? And if you use a constant time step you can replace forces with stable-limit impulses :). Of course if we use a Verlet integrator we don't need to use velocity at all (implicit in the integration).  I was discussing velocity and view vectors, are you familiar with linear algebra and vector mechanics?

@Snowfun "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." Since you brought up quantum physics operates at the quantum scale, that's like saying particle physics operates at particle scale, self defining and thus meaningless outside itself. The smallest measurable scale in the universe is the Planck Length and the shortest measurable amount of time is Planck Time. This means the Universe appears to be quantized, just like a computer! But, so what? What does any of this have to do with actual, real-world experiments that back up the predictions that a) Warp drives are possible, and b) That apparent mass/gravity effects can be changed with electromagnetism. Here are the links again in case you missed them earlier: https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281439915_Gravity-Superconductors_Interactions_Historical_Background,  http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/765861/China-beaten-Nasa-warp-drive-technology. If you have links which refute or debunk any of these links, please share them.

Regarding the Higgs boson and Higgs field theories: while theory did kind of predict the mass of the Higgs boson, the whole thing is a fuzzy, sloppy guesstimate, applying to multiple possible theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson. Thus, it's probably wrong. That's the one thing we can say about physics: what we know today is only a rough approximation and is effectively wrong, such as the Newtonian model breaking down at both the quantum (very small) and relativistic scales (very large). None of this really matters since we're seeing repeatable real-world results in lab tests, some of which are publicly many years old. Again, who knows how far they've gotten in 57 years in electrogravitics since they went totally silent!

@kaylee hope you enjoyed the video ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kaylee said:

@jcs the fastest manned aircraft is right here on wikipedia, its been around since 1964 and i doubt its record will ever be broken, technology hasnt changed much since then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record

Haha right on. The SR-71 was Kelly Johnson and Ben Rich's (public) masterpiece. What they created in secret would probably blow our minds even today. Did you know that the fuel tanks leak during take off in order to be able to properly seal once at cruise speed due to heating? After taking off they'd have to do an in-flight refuel before starting their mission.

And folks used to say that "if Man was meant to fly, he'd have wings. But he did fly. He discovered he had to." Oh wait that was Star Trek https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series. But they did say that around the time of the Wright brothers. Similar things regarding the Model-T vs. the horse. Folks even believed there was a Sound Barrier that couldn't be broken.

Speaking of Star Trek, in Back to the Future, the Hoverboard was supposed to have been invented by 2015. We probably could have had the Hoverboard even before 2015 (not just a lame Lexus ad) if electrogravitics hadn't been classified Cosmic Top Secret (of course I made that up, if it was Cosmic Top Secret or whatever secret decoder ring name they gave it, I surely wouldn't know about it) ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jcs, pal, i hate to disappoint you, but the military industrial complex hasnt made any technological progress since well before i was born, they just spend those black budget billions on partying

*video contains swear words*

this is real btw

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, kaylee said:

jcs, pal, i hate to disappoint you, but the military industrial complex hasnt made any technological progress since well before i was born, they just spend those black budget billions on partying

*video contains swear words*

this is real btw

In college I worked on Navy and Marine bases in San Diego selling computers. You learned to respect the base MPs and didn't ever wander off into restricted areas; generally they were pretty cool. Area 51 private security (EG&G) on public land is authorized to shoot with deadly force and aren't accountable for their actions. Folks who worked at Area 51 and got sick/died had no recourse in court either. Messing with these guys is a bad idea- what's the point? Wonder how many drones they shoot down- a directed EM weapon could shoot them down appearing as a malfunction. They also have technology to accurately track transmitter sources, so folks would likely get arrested or worse. Or as you say they could have blown all the money the same way Wall Street does (you know what I'm talking about). Thus the macho armed responses are to keep people from finding out we got diddly squat for our tax dollars ;) 

I contacted George Knapp for an interview for Cosmic Flow while in Henderson Nevada studying NLP for a month. He was booked solid but was cool enough to reply. I've seen some George Knapp, Bob Lazar & crew Area 51 footage (documentaries) that look pretty compelling, shot circa 1989 (before consumer drones etc.). Bob Lazar is an interesting character- telling the truth, hoaxer, psy-op, or combo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Orangenz said:

Obviously the LRO team Photoshopped all that. Everyone knows team NASA has mad 'chop'n skilz. If only electrogravitics were public so DJI could easily make affordable Moon drones, then we'd know for sure (and could peep the alien bases on the dark side of the moon) ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kirk Tincho said:

Ufo balloons at 1:41" !

Lol lucky that balloon didn't splash their drone. People ask since I used to fly RC airplanes and am a filmmaker, why don't I buy a drone. Simple- RC vehicles crash, fly away, etc. I was lucky to evade a few hawk attacks (highly maneuverable airplanes; not drones). For highly profitable paid gigs, sure it makes business sense. Otherwise, I don't think most people realize how fragile and easy it is to destroy or lose a drone. There were a few drones flying through the fireworks on the 4th of July. Didn't see any get shot down :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have a few minutes, i think this lecture, given from Rudolf Steiner on 1921, is a key text for all UFO and extraterrestial believers. Keep in mind it was given in 1921. You can see clear references to internet also and its danger. I have see endless photos, videos and "proofs" from UFOs and more than 99% are clearly hoax, but a few can be real.

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Places/Dornach/19210513p01.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/07/2017 at 6:38 PM, jcs said:

@Snowfun @Orangenz where in this thread did I mention quantum anything? The math and physics I referenced I am familiar with enough to write a rigid+soft body and fluid dynamics based internet multiplayer racing simulation which can hide over 300ms of lag. And the physical surface is defined by piece-wise continuous 3D cubic polynomial surfaces, for which I perform a Newton-search ray-cast to find the tire contact patch points. That's why I called it Amazing Curves. All other games ray-intersect polygons then smooth things out. I do the opposite, ray cast a smooth surface, then apply a bump/displacement map to make rough when needed. This all runs in real-time, 100+ fps on modest hardware (over 10 years old). I wrote this from scratch- all the physics is custom using using a custom energy-accurate integrator (engine sound came from a Z06 Corvette I owned):

@Orangenz perhaps I misunderstood but it sounded like you were saying I don't understand velocity? As in v = x*m/s? Or a = f/m, v1 = v0 + 1/2a*dt^2? And if you use a constant time step you can replace forces with stable-limit impulses :). Of course if we use a Verlet integrator we don't need to use velocity at all (implicit in the integration).  I was discussing velocity and view vectors, are you familiar with linear algebra and vector mechanics?

 

jcs I am somewhat familiar with subjects such as religious world views, physics, science and things like that. Your sentence I quoted earlier indicates you are not familiar with the concept behind velocity and it's simple definition, despite being quite capable in it's mathematics. This is how an anti-science magic worldview such as yours can take on the language of science and end up confusing people or even sounding like you know what you're talking about. It's quite fascinating to meet a UFO believer who denies UFO's but, again, nothing new.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Orangenz said:

jcs I am somewhat familiar with subjects such as religious world views, physics, science and things like that. Your sentence I quoted earlier indicates you are not familiar with the concept behind velocity and it's simple definition, despite being quite capable in it's mathematics. This is how an anti-science magic worldview such as yours can take on the language of science and end up confusing people or even sounding like you know what you're talking about. It's quite fascinating to meet a UFO believer who denies UFO's but, again, nothing new.  

Velocity is typically defined as the change in position divided by the change in time, dx/dt, the first derivative of position, where the second derivative is acceleration, etc. In 2 or more dimensions velocity is a vector with a direction and scalar magnitude: the length of the vector (speed). For angular velocity in 3D, the vector is the axis of rotation and the length is the angular speed. How do you define velocity?

I define and use the label UFO to describe any flying object that is unidentifiable. To believe or not to believe in this label doesn't make sense does it? A "balloon UFO" is an oxymoron, where a hoaxer attempted to mislead people into thinking that the balloon was something else.

"Anti-science magic worldview" - do you understand that real science is a perpetual self-challenging system, with the realization that there's always something new to learn? That's what separates science from religion. While some scientists fall into the religion trap, many politicians and all intelligence agencies use science as a mind control weapon, since unfortunately the average person has very little science education (so now the dumbing down of public education makes more sense, doesn't it?). And being "scientific" means being right, so you should listen to their messages and obey. "Why bother learning all that hard science stuff yourself, let the smart science people do all the hard work, we trust them!" This is a commonly used NLP brainwashing technique- to not want to 'appear dumb' by disagreeing with the smart, powerful, 'scientists'. So do the opposite of the "Why bother learning all that hard science stuff..." sentence. Knowledge is power- educate yourself for the benefit of yourself and those around you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. What contractor is in charge of building the most advanced flying vehicles in the world?
  2. Where is the latest hotbed for rumors of ancient civilizations and E.T. bases?
  3. What astronaut who walked on the moon visited this place recently?
  4. What high-ranking foreign affairs politician visited this place recently?
  5. What contractor is now in charge of all operations for this place?

Answers:

  1. Lockheed Martin
  2. Antarctica (publish in the Sun if you don't want to be taken seriously. Yet. (That UFO looking thing is visible on Google Earth, I checked it out)).
  3. Buzz Aldrin (had to be airlifted out for a medical emergency after he saw what was down there. The official story was pneumonia/lung congestion)
  4. John Kerry, Secretary of State, USA
  5. Lockheed Martin

Could all be perfectly timed coincidences which are making a lot of money for the Tin Foil Hat industry. Lockheed Martin running the show down there, that's very interesting indeed.

Anyone interested in a filming expedition down there? The last film crew (for Atlantis TV, based in Beverly Hills) supposedly found ancient ruins and has been missing since 2002. Or maybe we could build a solar-powered sailplane drone which could fly from LA to Antartica and beam back video over the sat-phone network? We could sell tin-foil hats with alien logos to fund the venture :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jcs said:
  1. What contractor is in charge of building the most advanced flying vehicles in the world?
  2. Where is the latest hotbed for rumors of ancient civilizations and E.T. bases?
  3. What astronaut who walked on the moon visited this place recently?
  4. What high-ranking foreign affairs politician visited this place recently?
  5. What contractor is now in charge of all operations for this place?

Answers:

  1. Lockheed Martin
  2. Antarctica (publish in the Sun if you don't want to be taken seriously. Yet. (That UFO looking thing is visible on Google Earth, I checked it out)).
  3. Buzz Aldrin (had to be airlifted out for a medical emergency after he saw what was down there. The official story was pneumonia/lung congestion)
  4. John Kerry, Secretary of State, USA
  5. Lockheed Martin

Could all be perfectly timed coincidences which are making a lot of money for the Tin Foil Hat industry. Lockheed Martin running the show down there, that's very interesting indeed.

Anyone interested in a filming expedition down there? The last film crew (for Atlantis TV, based in Beverly Hills) supposedly found ancient ruins and has been missing since 2002. Or maybe we could build a solar-powered sailplane drone which could fly from LA to Antartica and beam back video over the sat-phone network? We could sell tin-foil hats with alien logos to fund the venture :) 

 

In the last 5 years there has been a lot of movement in Antarctica, with a lot of visits from different places, and before these 5 years, nobody care about Antarctic, something happened there for sure, the drone idea has been in my mind also, but there is no way to launch it from LA, the operation center has to be located in Punta Arenas in the south of Chile, probably in a small town near this place, in a small island may be without attracting any attention….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

In the last 5 years there has been a lot of movement in Antarctica, with a lot of visits from different places, and before these 5 years, nobody care about Antarctic, something happened there for sure, the drone idea has been in my mind also, but there is no way to launch it from LA, the operation center has to be located in Punta Arenas in the south of Chile, probably in a small town near this place, in a small island may be without attracting any attention….

Maybe this would be a fun kickstarter etc. project, just to see who tries to stop us and why. 

Since there is nothing 'official' going on down there, no one should care if we fly drones in to have a peek for ourselves. Surprised Steven Greer hasn't proposed this, or any of the folks over at Gaia.com. Get Steven Greer, Graham Hancock, Art Bell, George Noory et al to get behind it I'd bet interesting things could happen for disclosure, long before any private drone would be allowed to venture there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jcs said:

Maybe this would be a fun kickstarter etc. project, just to see who tries to stop us and why. 

Since there is nothing 'official' going on down there, no one should care if we fly drones in to have a peek for ourselves. Surprised Steven Greer hasn't proposed this, or any of the folks over at Gaia.com. Get Steven Greer, Graham Hancock, Art Bell, George Noory et al to get behind it I'd bet interesting things could happen for disclosure, long before any private drone would be allowed to venture there.

hahaha….we will be in jail just minutes after we contacted any of these guys!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

hahaha….we will be in jail just minutes after we contacted any of these guys!!!!!

Ha! No drones allowed in Antarctica without a permit! http://www.auroraexpeditions.com.au/destination/antarctica-cruises/planning-your-trip/drone-use-in-antarctica Good luck getting a permit, lol.

On the application form:

Purpose of Commercial Drone Flights: to capture proof of advanced lost civilizations and advanced terrestrial and extraterrestrial vehicles.

Response (large red letters, at an angle): DENIED. Reason: drone overflights might effect penguin mating, might increase global warming and iceberg break-offs, and might enlarge the ozone hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2017 at 2:43 AM, Orangenz said:

This is how an anti-science magic worldview such as yours can take on the language of science and end up confusing people or even sounding like you know what you're talking about. It's quite fascinating to meet a UFO believer who denies UFO's but, again, nothing new.  

@kaylee this sentence reminded me of the pattern 9/11 debunkers, government agencies, and MSM used to discredit actual scientists and engineers. They got away with it in 2001 because most people don't have a science or engineering background and most people at that time trusted MSM and the government to tell them the truth. In 2017 MSM has been totally discredited (especially CNN), and most people now understand MSM are tools used by those truly in power (not the government). Now there is so much evidence that anyone who bothers to do their own research and educates themselves on basic physics and chemistry will understand that 9/11 was 100% an inside job. A couple smoking guns: did cell phones work on airplanes in 2001? Can buildings collapse in free fall without controlled demolition? Can fire, jet fuel (kerosene), and office material alone heat steel to fail? Was nanothermite a natural occurring building material for the WTC? Can a fire continue to burn for 3 months without oxygen and without a chemical oxidizer (such as nanothermite)? Did the building 7 video footage collapse even come close to NIST's "computer simulation"? If you got "yes" to any of these, please share the links :)  

The same information war techniques have been used for years regarding UFOs and secret government projects. Steven Greer has blown the whistle on the next planned false flag: the "alien invasion", so it's unlikely that will happen now. It's great that a former NIST government employee has been able to come out and tell the truth. That's a good sign that more people will be comfortable to come out and tell the truth about the real ancient history of this planet and E.T.s (I agree that secret government projects should remain secret, as long as the intent is to protect the people (all the people of Earth, not just their own countries)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...