VIDEO: Man "Summons" UFO!

Status
Not open for further replies.
draqon said:
what you callin me a looser? Better say to my face punk. :mad:
Click to expand...

Is your handle 'lsufos'? Do you provide content for the 'lsufos' web site?

But I might still call you a loser if you see lights in the sky and assume they are alien spacecraft.

I dislike the term 'UFO' anyway. Alien conspiracy theorists hide behind it's ambiguity, using logic along the lines of 'if you don't know what all the lights in the sky are, some could be aliens', which is totally flawed. Also, presenting video of lights in the the sky as 'UFOs' without making any effort to actually identify what they might be is dishonest. 'lsufos' presents shockingly bad video footage, without any information that might allow investigation. Location, direction, time of day etc. If he is filming near an airport, but not telling us that, it's really poor form, for instance.
 
phlogistician said:
Is your handle 'lsufos'? Do you provide content for the 'lsufos' web site?

But I might still call you a loser if you see lights in the sky and assume they are alien spacecraft.

I dislike the term 'UFO' anyway. Alien conspiracy theorists hide behind it's ambiguity, using logic along the lines of 'if you don't know what all the lights in the sky are, some could be aliens', which is totally flawed. Also, presenting video of lights in the the sky as 'UFOs' without making any effort to actually identify what they might be is dishonest. 'lsufos' presents shockingly bad video footage, without any information that might allow investigation. Location, direction, time of day etc. If he is filming near an airport, but not telling us that, it's really poor form, for instance.
Click to expand...

well i thought that since I said ufologists are loosers, then you being polite in nature and in no wish to refer to me, refered to me in a short term, thinking that I will not be able to uncover the disguise. Thus when you said lsufos is a looser...I believed you were referring to me...since ls stands for looser and ufos is UFO's ....and I did say ufologists were loosers...so there ya go...And thats how I think.
 
Well Hamster, it started with some flying saucer sightings that were obviously REAL and they were indeed seen with real eyes. Seeing as these aircraft defy physics, the most logical explanation would be that they are top-secret flying machines with a very special technology on board. After these thoughts went through my mind I began to wonder who exactly was behind all this, and did a google search for "manmade flying saucer" and I came a across an authors website. I purchased his books and soon found his observations to be very much similar to what I have seen in the skies.

I can even recall a newspaper article in which a man saw a triangular space ship and on the back there were the words "Emergency Exit." I didn't know space aliens spoke english. (or maybe it was manmade?) (invented by Nikola Tesla)
 
Last edited:
Almost funny dragon.

You're obviously ignorant about the use of the term "UFO." When you use that term you are refering to something that is unidentified. That means a 747 could be a UFO as long as the observer didn't know what type of plane he was looking at.

Maybe one day you'll see a flying machine which can fly right angles at very high speeds, if you do, you'll think "Wow, manmadeflyingsaucer was right." If you're stupid you'll think "Ooohhh, I didn't just see what I just saw." Then again, you may never have the fortunate chance of seeing mans greatest invention, and you'll be in the dark about it till your grave, just like everyone else.

Hoooorraaay for secrecy!
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
You're obviously ignorant about the use of the term "UFO." When you use that term you are refering to something that is unidentified. That means a 747 could be a UFO as long as the observer didn't know what type of plane he was looking at.
Click to expand...
That is perfectly true.
 
at the risk of sounding unpopular, or getting a blasting from manmadeflyingsaucer, How can an aircraft manage a high speed and changing direction without

a) leaving a vapour trail as the heat would be massive!
b) crushing occupants inside because the positive g's pulled would be... HUGE! If it changed direction in a nothingth of a second then the g's would be approaching infinite
c) no sonic boom

This are fundamental laws of physics being broken, ones that no matter what advancement of technology can't be broken.

It makes me think back to a joke about Star Trek. When someone wrote to the creators of the show asking how they could travel at the speed of light and faster when it breaks important principles, like the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. The star trek creators wrote back saying they have Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle dampners on board. The fan wrote back asking how do they work. Star trek creators wrote back saying, they work just fine.
 
spacemansteve:

at the risk of sounding unpopular, or getting a blasting from manmadeflyingsaucer, How can an aircraft manage a high speed and changing direction without

a) leaving a vapour trail as the heat would be massive!
Click to expand...

I have no information to endorse or refute that claim

b) crushing occupants inside because the positive g's pulled would be... HUGE! If it changed direction in a nothingth of a second then the g's would be approaching infinite
Click to expand...

Yes, I can see your concern here. Naturally that is hard to believe because you haven't seen such things in the sky. The technology sythesizes momentum in the desired direction, so that means it has the ability to change its direction of momentum on a dime. (or should I say, at the flick of a switch, or some other form of aerial control)

You know that all matter is composed of electric charges? Or you know at least that all matter CONTAINS electric charges which are paramount to the existence of matter? I think you know one of these possibilities to be true.
So, the technology, it synthesizes momentum by letting out high voltage charges which in a way, grapple the very "fabric" of space and pump it through the ship. The theory has it, that when you move through space, you also move through the "fabric" of space, which is what causes momentum in moving bodies. But if you can move the fabric of space through YOU then you and/or your ship gain momentum in a synthesized manner.

c) no sonic boom
Click to expand...

The reason for this: When a flying saucer moves through the air, it lets off high voltage currents, which flow off of it as it moves. The higher the current the faster the ship goes, therefore the air is ionized as it goes, and as you know, like charges repel, so the air behind the flying machine is repelling against itself and slowly decharging, thus slowly coming back together, instead of causing a loud clapping noise.... Also these ships can be very silent, because they don't have an "engine" which has internal movement, its engine is in a way, partially constructed of the "fabric" of space.

This are fundamental laws of physics being broken, ones that no matter what advancement of technology can't be broken.
Click to expand...

Either our current physics is a partial lie or perhaps partially MIS-knowledge. If you ever see one such metal flying machine in the sky, then perhaps you will change your mind. If you want to read further get this book: Occult Ether Physics (Teslas hidden space propulsion system and the conspiracy to conceal it) Just give it a chance, or at least read it for the shear curiousity of a "new" theory.
 
manmadeflyingsaucer said:
So, the technology, it synthesizes momentum by letting out high voltage charges which in a way, grapple the very "fabric" of space and pump it through the ship.
Click to expand...

The "fabric" of free space is not known to be made of matter, but may have some particles contained therein, hence high voltage charges might only have an effect on those particles, but cannot 'grapple' to free space.

As well, those high voltage charges would be detectable.

The theory has it, that when you move through space, you also move through the "fabric" of space, which is what causes momentum in moving bodies. But if you can move the fabric of space through YOU then you and/or your ship gain momentum in a synthesized manner.
Click to expand...

Correction: assertion, not theory. And since electrical charges do not couple with free space, the assertion is moot.

The reason for this: When a flying saucer moves through the air, it lets off high voltage currents, which flow off of it as it moves. The higher the current the faster the ship goes,
Click to expand...

All the while, completely undetected. Uh huh.

Either our current physics is a partial lie or perhaps partially MIS-knowledge.
Click to expand...

Well, since there are mountains of evidence supporting current physical theories and none supporting your assertions, can we conclude that you're lying?
 
Either our current physics is a partial lie or perhaps partially MIS-knowledge.
Click to expand...
Or, just a wild guess here, current physics is correct and someone's telling porkies...
Synthesised momentum? Either momentum is there or it isn't.
The theory has it, that when you move through space, you also move through the "fabric" of space, which is what causes momentum in moving bodies.
Click to expand...
Surely if there were a "fabric of space" it would show up as drag factor. Momentum is "caused" by the movement of mass, in fact one definition is mass x velocity...
 
Space and what exists in it are two different things. You can't tie the two together because that would debunk every known and proven theory of quantum physics. The only force out their powerfull enough to "warp" the fabric of space time is gravity

Also i'm going to add to the electric charges comment. To generate such electric charges to do what your asking, undetectable and ones that don't interfere with all of our modern technology is impossible. Electric charges create EM waves, these waves will interfere with just about anything and probably wouldn't help most of the electrical grid in the area.
 
BTW, any link to a book/website/or any other form of reading and viewing material that has ties to "Conspiracy Theories" i will never find credible. Its like me putting a link to a site that says Bush is an Alien to prove that Bush is an alien! No proof whatsoever!

Also, just to clear my opinion on the issue just mentioned, I can't prove that bush is or isn't an alien, its all up to you :p
 
spacemansteve, there are a few credible books that do mention brief fantasies of the author along the lines of ESP in relationship to quantum mechanics, they could be conceived as "conspiracy theories".

Most of the time such pieces are written to give some commercialised word filler to pad out what would otherwise be a very boring account of theory merged with experiment.

Scientists do have imaginations, without them then they would of been lawyers or doctors not scientists.
 
Theres a difference however with a credible scientist writing a novel with fantasies based on factual possibilities. Stephen Hawkings does it all the time. I'd rather read a novel that has scientific value than a novel that has baseless facts because people are trying to explain the unexplainable.

e.g. Time travel could be possible through the use of wormholes, but is highly unlikely as we have not met anyone from the future yet. Or... Alternative universes may exist because time is not one dimensional, it has its own dimension that moves in many directions. Something i read by the afore mentioned scientist in Physics

Compared to: The UFO space craft could have engines that manipulate space time around it so's that the propulsion is silent and it can move at fascinating speeds. etc...

Which one sounds more credible? The fantasy based on fact, or the fantasy based on speculation?
 
e.g. Time travel could be possible through the use of wormholes, but is highly unlikely as we have not met anyone from the future yet. Or... Alternative universes may exist because time is not one dimensional, it has its own dimension that moves in many directions. Something i read by the afore mentioned scientist in Physics

Compared to: The UFO space craft could have engines that manipulate space time around it so's that the propulsion is silent and it can move at fascinating speeds. etc...
Click to expand...
But those both sound credible. The point is that very very few UFO activists are even as remotely credible as to say that UFO engines "manipulate space time"! That's what happens in Star Trek after all, ie acceptably plausible science fiction. Instead they continue to promote the idea that aliens are so backward they need "markers" drawn in corn fields. Anyone ever see that idiotic film Signs? Even in that there was a line about how the aliens were being drawn to the biggest cities...... using rural crops??!? (sorry, got into rant mode there....)
 
Last edited:
But those both sound credible.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, on the face of it. But one of those ideas has mathematics behind it (from someone whose career has been maths and physics, and IIRC he said it's only speculation) while the other has only the words "somehow manipulate space time" with the supporting "reasoning" that "it's aliens doing so how can we say how it's done?"
Anyone ever see that idiotic film Signs?
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, in that film the traditional M Night Shyamalan twist was - the film totally sucked! Well at least I wasn't expecting that.

PS Spacemansteve - Hawking, not Hawkings. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top