The UFO Technology Hackers Manual Second Edition

Re: I will answer the time spent on research question

Originally posted by betavoltaic
I have been studying the UFO phenomena for 15 years at the time of that writing. I had been studying the patent archives for 5 years at that time. The 2 have relevance of their own and taken in context it is a lot clearer then when taken out of content and lumped together.
Click to expand...
Fair enough reply... howz about the "James E. Cox speaks" issue?

With regards to "just chided and spat upon...", I remembered you from The Undernet scene. I had reservations then, I have reservations now. I pointed them out, and rather than respond as I noted above, you gave the appearance trying to misdirect or deflect attention. Whether this was actually the case, or simply a burst of frustration is unclear.

"Some people come to these boards and vent their frustrations and nothing more." Upon what do you base this statement? I often disagree, often quite vigorously, with people on this board who take no personal offense. It is the nature of this forum on many occasions. There are also quite a number of people here who will be thrilled to download your material, and engage in discussions of a different tact.

If you're thin-skinned, you'll have a rough go here. If you're confident in your beliefs, support them and sway those that you can. Welcome to SciForms.

Peace.
 
James has downloaded the new edition he has the same questions

James Cox has the same opinion. This is due to the fact that as far as his material is concerned not much of the book has changed. He is working on a new system and is going to patent later this year after my company puts some funds into the development. I can not discuss the details due to our NDA.

I think people do tend to vent and attack instead of investigate.

Pick apart someone instead of trying to understand their view seems to be the tactic.

(Q) made no attempt to debate my material and is not likely to do so. Instead it is called gibberish and calls me a crackpot.

I am no crackpot and my material is strictly about patented technology. Some of which is very promising and was done by engineers with advanced degrees of their own. My opinions of the patents and my layman's terms explanations are not to satisfy the top level scientists of the age or some mid level engineer at some technology company or a software development company company for that matter.

They are aimed at the non technical in order for them to have a grasp that so called UFO technology could have been invested by humans and hidden away from the public for several strategic reasons.

That is the main view I try to convey in my book. No psuedoscience is involved.
 
Last edited:
The idea of Lorentz force is not new. I designed a scale model as a college project in 1968. The force works very well in water. Air is a whole different matter. Without ionization, you may have to spend more energy to get anywhere and the amount of energy you carry by weight may not make the item liftable to outerspace. Going in the vaccum of space may not work at all, otherwise NASA would be using it for attitude control.

BTW, Lorenz force is not patentable. It is like V=I*R, a fundamental law of electricity.

It is a good idea. Chances are that, if the math works, we already have a spy plane up there. The DoD is aware of this technology since 1966. As a matter of fact, my air-car design is based on this principle with a lot of modifications from my earlier research. See my post elsewhere in this forum. It is free. My work predates to 1967/68.
 
Torroidal Coil to impart a Lorentz Force

Certainly a Lorenz force is not patentable but like anything else if used in a design that had not been done it could be patented.

Like if you have an internal combustion engine you could not patent the force of the burning fuel ejecting the piston, but if you had a novel approach to the engine design the engine could be patented.

Much is the same for the patents discussed in my book. The earliest use of the Lorenz force for use in a force field type of propulsion in the patent archives goes back to the 80's.

What patent uses or mentions the Lorenz force in the 60's as you describe? I would like to see the patent reference if you have it.

Having studied the patents in that classification 60/200.1
The earliest patent using the Lorenz force for propulsion I found was James Cox 4663932 filed in 82, that is the earliest I have seen.

I would like to see any specific reference you have found.
 
About the craft in my image

The image at the start of the thread I did one day when walking. I saw this big empty open field and thought what a great place to land a UFO. So I snapped a shot or 2 of the field then started walking home. Then I saw a good shape to start with for the UFO which was a distant water tower of a white color.

When I got home I downloaded the images into Paint Shop Pro and started working. The water tower got painted and stretched a bit and given a chrome plating, and I pasted it into the field when I had it looking how I wanted. then I added some motion blur just a touch to help blend it into the image. Then I added the drop shadow to further blend it into the scene.

I am sure flight of the navigator had an influence on the design of that craft. It was a favorite of mine.

I ended up submiting it to Sightings on the Radio for their splash screens (Now Rense.com). They still have it in their archives.

Rense Splash Screen Archive

I just like the image and thought it would make good cover art that I own so I can use it for the cover of the book.
 
(Q) made no attempt to debate my material and is not likely to do so. Instead it is called gibberish and calls me a crackpot.

Are you calling me out? There is far too much BS on this site to comment on everything. Besides why waste the time. But I'll add a few comments to satisfy your need for feedback.

The following is an excerpt from your site describing how James Taylors EEP Engine should work.

It works by shearing off electromagnetic bubbles at very high frequency. This creates ripples on the fabric of space-time on which to ride. All this is accomplished by producing two opposing high density electromagnetic fields in opposition to one another, then Canceling out one field, and at the same time shearing off the other field with a torriodial wound coil. Then they introduce eddy currents into the now turned off field coil to prevent a back EMF from forming.

"Electromagnetic bubbles" are what have been theorized to replace solar sails on spacecraft. The idea is to encircle the craft with magnets that would create a field allowing charged particles form the sun to push the bubble and the craft attached to it.

You cannot 'create ripples on the fabric of space-time on which to ride' with electromagnetic fields. That is pure nonsense. The only observed effect on space-time is the presence of gravitational sources.

The creation and canceling of opposing electromagnetic fields does not constitute a form of propulsion. The conservation of energy tells us we can transfer vibrational energy across empty space in the form of electromagnetic waves. The effect will cause a torque inducing dipoles to oscillate or rotate. In other words, the electromagnetic fields would cause forces within the craft however they would not act as a propellant. Again, pure nonsense.

All of this is a little confusing for someone with no engineering background in the field. It suffices to say that what we have here is a solid-state device very similar to what we might expect to find in a UFO, or as I stated earlier A star trek impulse engine.

No. All of this is completely confusing for anyone, their backgrounds notwithstanding. You've been watching way too much TV. Stop spending so much time researching nonsense and take a few classes in physics. If you at least started to educate yourself, you'll also quickly realize this is all gibberish.
 
No, I did not patent my design. It was a prototype college project (engineering). Since the product is not available publicly and is used in the military environment, I should not say too much.

What I can say is that, there are other applications that our military could use for which I do not have any information. So I can speculate freely. First of all, the patent has flaws in it. Most commercial and sophisticated patents are purposely flawed so that no one can copy it (countries who do not abide by the copyright law). Anyway, I plan to test a model aircar version in a few years, I do not have the time now, to tinker with it.

I anticipate the problem will be generating a large amount of electricity in a compact environment. I have talked about fuel cells and may be someday fusion cells(if the technology works). Again, as I said, both my research and the military research has been documented as early as 1967 with military probably going before that. Certain patents are classified top secret and the information is not available to the public - I am sure the real stuff in this case reached the same fate.

As soon as I solve the power density problem, I will let everybody know, how close we are to such a product.
 
Here is a question for Q

I would like to know how you think that UFOs propel themselves Q?

Do you think that they simply do not exist and that their propulsion is not relevant since they don't exist?

If you do think they exist then the first question is applicable.

Is it your considered opinion that force field propulsion will not work? Or that I simply do not grasp the subject enough to report on it?

Do you think it impossible to impart momentum on an electromagnetic force field?

Since you are so critical of the subject perhaps you will share the reasoning for this. Or is it just a personality thing.

Did you read all or any of the patents?
 
Power Density Problem

The reason for my company is to solve the power density problem. Fuel cells or any type of chemical energy system is not likely to ever solve that problem.

Direct conversion of the subatomic into electric energy will. Dr. Santilli who has experience on DOE contract work is working with my company to solve this problem. We also have Dr. Alex Ignatiev who is with the University of Houston Space Vacuum Center working on the energy conversion matrix. The combination of a quantum well hetrostructure conversion matrix and a stimulated accelerated decay isotope fuel source should prove the most effective solution for small scale applications.

For larger applications I think some type of pulsed fusion reactor will prove the best method of power for main ship power.

Something like shown in this patent

Pulsed Fusion Reactor

Holds the best promise for large ship main power.

kmguru I guess you must have worked on some DOD projects if you are talking about this type of technology. You think most patents have fundamental flaws? That is something to consider.
 
I would like to know how you think that UFOs propel themselves Q?

What is your definition of a UFO? If you think it's some sort of alien craft from another planet, then you're delusional, they don't exist, not on Earth anyway.

Is it your considered opinion that force field propulsion will not work?

See my response above.

Or that I simply do not grasp the subject enough to report on it?

I already made that clear.

Do you think it impossible to impart momentum on an electromagnetic force field?

See my response above.

Since you are so critical of the subject perhaps you will share the reasoning for this. Or is it just a personality thing.

I am critical of crackpots. They undermine real scientists who are forced to continuously battle for ever-shrinking research funds. Non-scientific politicians can't determine who is a crackpot and who is not. That is why crackpots need to be dealt with harshly. Especially those trying to empty our wallets.
 
I don't think they are alien at all

The focus of my book is the fact that so called UFOs are human engineered and use force field propulsion and not back engineered from crashed alien saucers.

There is nothing in my book expect for referenced materials that establish that it is within human capability to produce the effects observed in UFO propulsion.

My idea for the UFO is that they are Unauthorized Facts in Operation, or Unified Field Objects perhaps. There is no direct connection in anyway to otherworld craft.

There is enough speculation in it to include that possibility if that turns out to be true but in no way uses alien inspired technology.

Most of it is likely as kmguru says and is American Made since the late 60's. Although that is much earlier then I would have considered. But I lack any type of Top Security clearance so I would not know or be aware of that material.
 
The focus of my book is the fact that so called UFOs are human engineered and use force field propulsion and not back engineered from crashed alien saucers.

There is nothing in my book expect for referenced materials that establish that it is within human capability to produce the effects observed in UFO propulsion.

These statements contradict one another. How is it that the effects of UFO propulsion have been observed? Who observed them? What did they observe?

There is enough speculation in it...

Exactly! Speculation. Uniformed, uneducated, delusional speculation. Nothing more.

IMO, Tom Beardon is more convincing.
 
Observed Effects of UFO Propulsion

How is it that the effects of UFO propulsion have been observed? Who observed them? What did they observe?
Click to expand...

This is patently absurd (q) They have been filmed and witnessed for some time now and this is quite common knowlage.

The effect of the propulsion has been observed for some time in fact. Try reading Passport fo Magonia by Jacques Vallee, he has observations recorded for 100 years, many details of the propulsion can be discerned from this very through collection of reports. I have an original 1969 copy in my library.

In several reports they are shown to charge external circuits. This is a clear indication that they operate at least in part on electromotive force.
 
Try reading Passport fo Magonia by Jacques Vallee..

Why would you presume that Vallee's book on UFO's is somehow supposed to add validity to your argument.

Quote: Vallee presents UFOs as a deep mystery, perhaps with magical, cosmic significance involving the nature of time.

Jacques Vallee is an idiot crackpot. Nice try.

They have been filmed and witnessed for some time now and this is quite common knowlage.

Common knowledge to the irrational and delusional.
 
Now it is obvious who is irrational (Q) takes first prize

Jacques Vallee is an idiot crackpot
Click to expand...

I beg to differ with you on that. Not only are you a lout and hot head but you have insulted a very smart and well educated man in Jacque Vallee.

Vallee has a B.S. in mathematics from the Sorbonne,
a M.S. in astrophysics from Lille, and a PhD in computer science from Northwestern University.

To say the man is stupid makes you out to be nothing more then a bad mouthing, hot headed, self important, lout.

He served on the National Advisory Committee of the University of Michigan College of Engineering. Is it logical that they would hire a crackpot for that post?

You really stepped in it with that (Q) you opinion is noted and given its proper value at this point.
 
Last edited:
And maybe leaving it alone is the wrong thing to do?

Nothing was disproven in the least just chided and spat upon with no real critical debate. Not even the content of the patents were discussed..
Click to expand...

Because, perchance, we do not have hours and hours and the years of training it would take?

In other words save the high and mighty scientist stuff for someone that will beleive it.
Click to expand...

*Shrugs* I tried to help. I'm normally quite a bitch myself.

Some people come to these boards and vent their frustrations and nothing more. That is self evident.
Click to expand...

Under the influence of the right (wrong?) sort of mushrooms, perhaps it is self evident.

Vallee has a B.S. in mathematics from the Sorbonne,
a M.S. in astrophysics from Lille, and a PhD in computer science from Northwestern University.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority.

He served on the National Advisory Committee of the University of Michigan College of Engineering. Is it logical that they would hire a crackpot for that post?
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority.

Besides, such appointmets are often political.

Besides, if the military has such technology, would we not be having a far easier time of it in Afghanistan?
 
appeal to authority

Cthulhu loves you.
Click to expand...

Isn't Cthulhu devoid by nature of any type of love for anyone or anything.

That is kind of like a mask for a curse.

I will not comment on the war except to say it looks like a complete fabrication. It will go as well or not so well according to reasons that are not even going to be in the headlines.
Besides the technology discussed in

James Cox's patent renders the ship invisible to radar very effectivly and it is likely very fast and would not be detected. Why use an asset that is for strategic global use for a small regional conflict like the Afgan police action anyway.

Xev, you talk like a lawyer
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top