What about empirical evidence?

[Fukushi]

What on earth is that all about? In the clip your referring to you're clearly looking at a computer generated animation, I have not the slightest idea how anyone could possibly look at it any other way, and yet your reaction to it seems somewhat... peculiar.

It’s YOU who are referring to a CGI clip to illustrate your point,….what I mean, and apparently you don’t understand, is that you can’t use a special effect to illustrate some home made truth you understand?
It’s FAKE,…CREATED BULLSHIT in other words, and this you’re trying to sell to us as ‘truth’, it’s utter crap. Why? ITS NOT REAL for crying out loud !!! Peculiar indeed! Lucky we both agree at some point or else this discussion would be useless to both of us:

No one can ever persist in the claim that UFO's simply don't exist.

and one L or two won’t change that either. ‘Nick ya mosquito’

but people would just take one look at his typing an presume some deficiency on his part not at all the case fact.

I’m taking it that you where one of them, if you trip over one L to much in a word that can be spelled in more ways then one, get what I mean? It’s YOU who are attacking ME, not the other way ‘round.

If indeed they happen overnight, indeed it is. Always fascinated me how they started as just relatively plain, simple geometric forms and they rapidly progressed into ever increasing complexity... One could almost be forgiven for seeing it as being an almost competitive kind of "sport" with rival teams each trying to out do the other.

And I would be more tempted to comply if you both could just stick with the subject, cause that’s not proper conversation, it’s a diversion attempt, and those tactics don’t reverberate friendly intentions, rather hostile.

Does have a thing for using occasionally odd terms which I'm not entirely sure clearly relay what he's actually saying

Well well well, looking at yourself at last?

but at least he never refers to everyone, irrespective of race, gender or creed, as "old chap"...

A thing at which you seem to be very good.

2: Entry into the Earths atmosphere from Space - This is where things differ. If your UFO genuinely is extraterrestrial in origin, it's a physical necessity that it possesses some technological means of travelling whatever the distance is. There's no two ways about that. That remains an absolute.

Oh my, you actually never heard of the term: ‘mother-ship’?

Let me throw this question to you'll.......

i personally am awre of mant evidencs of UFOs. I have see many convincingphotos, video footage, witness testimy that seem autentic--from all walksoflife

from sceptic i hear their want of 'evidence'

so, let me ask you this. a simple question: what evidencewould really satisfy you?

Let me put it this way to you:

I’ve seen them for myself, several times, alone AND together with a chap I knew back then, we both knew WHAT we saw was no plane or a helicopter or a balloon, no way.

You understand me?

And you haven’t read even the first link in my post or else you’d understand by now, HOW exactly the propulsion-system of a ufo works.

And I’ll skip the insults this time


Greetz
Fuku

Ps: and pleeeeeeze stay on subject

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Let me throw this question to you'll.......

i personally am awre of mant evidencs of UFOs. I have see many convincingphotos, video footage, witness testimy that seem autentic--from all walksoflife

from sceptic i hear their want of 'evidence'

so, let me ask you this. a simple question: what evidencewould really satisfy you?

Demonstration. If UFO's really are craft of some description and behave the way people relay they do so because the physics exists which allows them to do so - that being the case it must be demonstrable.

Empirical evidence. Demonstration. Something tangible or else applicable or better yet both.

 

[Fukushi]

Thank you! At last!

Are the principals demonstratable? And what about those 'real world physics' that they seem to defy?

Yes: take a look at this site: http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/theories.htm
here you can see for yourself that the basic principals hold together! And that it DOES work!


Well than, can we build a UFO?

Well yeah, off course we can, T.T.Brown already was on it and he worked with the more or less same principals! Here have a history class: make sure you take a look at the Early Experiments and Models section: http://soteria.com/brown/pictures/index.htm#bahnson

And when we take a look elsewhere http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/electrokineticufo.htm we can clearly see that these principals had been demonstrated very early on in our time,…

So can we ask a demonstration of ufo fligth?
I think that’s too early to ask, but I think in the not so very far future we will see demonstration of it on a massive scale yes,…

Only if we find the people who posses the technical skills to build one of these things, then the sponsors would have to invest huge quantities in this,…honestly, I don’t know how far their projects stand, but I have a general Idear. Here take a look: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ufophysics/ufopropagation.htm

 

[Fukushi]

It seems to me, there is (are) some corporation(s) that are requesting T.T.Brown's patent already,...hmm did you know he was at it in 1928?

Here the patent office: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?IDX=US2949550&CY=ch&LG=fr&DB=EPODOC


Maby it was wrong of me to start this thread in the section pseudo-science,...

 

[Oli]

TT Brown's stuff did/ does work, sort of - but it's only ion wind. Check out the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion Physics site (Mark Millis), they've done studies and concluded that the ratio of lift to input power is too low, but there were a couple of anomalies that might bear further study.

 

[duendy]

Demonstration. If UFO's really are craft of some description and behave the way people relay they do so because the physics exists which allows them to do so - that being the case it must be demonstrable.

Empirical evidence. Demonstration. Something tangible or else applicable or better yet both.

they--witnesses--simply cannot grab one...lure it down.....work out how to make one. all they ca do is record it on camera, or bear witness to it

hmmmmmm now i am lost for a big word to describe our differing attitudes when FACED with the evidence....i am calling it evidence
yours, shared by one or two othrw here seems to homogenize all of te evidence of UFOs from year dot into a convenient 'it simply is not real evidence category you must be imagining/seeing things'......and others, including me, do not jump to such closure at all at all

Fukushi...VERy interesting. has that guy got any connecion with Nicola Tisla?...not sure i've spealt name correctly

 

[Oli]

evidence of UFOs from year dot into a convenient 'it simply is not real evidence

The problem with the eye witnes "evidence" is that it's so often contradictory - no two incidents report the same thing, (okay, two witnesses of the same occurrence will generally agree), that, if true, then there must be more UFO models in production than car types, with as many diffferent propulsion systems. And crewed by dozens of different alien species
It's like trying to work out what's happening when the first witness reports a bicycle, the next a Suzuki super-sportsbike, the next a battleship, the one after a glider ....
There's insufficient hard, consistent data to form a working hypothesis.

 

[duendy]

The problem with the eye witnes "evidence" is that it's so often contradictory - no two incidents report the same thing, (okay, two witnesses of the same occurrence will generally agree),

me::make yer mind up! you eem to be in disagreement wid yerself there Oly. actually you are dead wrong. for example, the Mexico City event in 1991, many more than 2 people say UFOs from different viewpontw, and this has been so for many events. i think you are makin it up as u go alond my friend

that, if true, then there must be more UFO models in production than car types, with as many diffferent propulsion systems. And crewed by dozens of different alien species

me:::dont really get your point here. yo are jumpin the gun a bit. at the mo weare actually talkin bout seeing UFOs

It's like trying to work out what's happening when the first witness reports a bicycle, the next a Suzuki super-sportsbike, the next a battleship, the one after a glider ....
There's insufficient hard, consistent data to form a working hypothesis.

you've lost me dude. you are talking about the varities of UFO...? heard of diversity bro?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

hmmmmmm now i am lost for a big word to describe our differing attitudes when FACED with the evidence....i am calling it evidence
yours, shared by one or two othrw here seems to homogenize all of te evidence of UFOs from year dot into a convenient 'it simply is not real evidence category you must be imagining/seeing things'......and others, including me, do not jump to such closure at all at all

duendy...? I'm doing bugger all of the sort. Eyewitness testimony, anecdotal by its nature. Film and video "evidence" - nothing that can't be done in any number of ways other than filming a UFO. Speculative at best and an area replete with incidences of complete and utter fraud - as anyone whose ever done the slightest research in the matter can't possibly be unaware of....

In your response you ask Fukushi how certain idea's he's convinced about tie up with the work of Nikola Tesla....

Now, Fukushi supplies us with a list of many and various sites which expound the sorts of ideas Fukushi knows all about....

http://soteria.com/brown/pictures/index.htm
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/lifters.htm
http://www.americanantigravity.com/
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/tesla_2.htm
(Nikola Tesla's EM Field Lift experiments)
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo4.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/ufo6.htm
http://www.lostech.net/antigravity_catalogue.html
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/antigravity_antimatter.htm
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/electrograviticsystems.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/16/hameltech4.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/time_travel.html
http://www.ufoartwork.com/
http://www.mufon.com/
http://www.bvalphaserver.com/
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://www.4dreamland.com/Mambo/index.php
http://www.unknowncountry.com/
http://www.disclosureproject.org/
http://www.greatdreams.com/
http://www.ufotv.com/aspages/gettypes.asp?schtype=cropcircle
http://www.ufocity.com/
http://www.ufoinfo.com/contents.shtml
http://ovnis.esoterica.pt/ingles/antarctingl/VRIL6ingl.htm
http://www.alien.de/alien/
http://www.alien-ufos.com/
http://www.aaaa.demon.nl/military.html
http://www.todobr.com.br/cgi-bin/redirect.cgi?query=ufo
http://www.ufocenter.com/
http://www.fsreview.net/spi/nazinth.htm
http://www.cco.net/~trufax/trans/lammer.html
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/index_en.html
http://www.veling.nl/anne/templars/ancientaircraft_nf.html
http://www.geocities.com/aliens_ufos_videos/
http://alienidentities.com/ai_ie4.html
http://www.ufomag.co.uk/LatestIssueINDEX.htm
http://www.ufoconspiracy.com/
http://www.cufos.org/cometa.html
http://www.drboylan.com/
http://www.efodon.de/html/publik/do/edo25.htm
http://www.naziufos.com/dischi/saucers1-ie.htm
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2301/military.html
http://www.magonia.demon.co.uk/arc/00/newmag.htm
http://www.geocities.com/r_ayana/FreeWheel.html
http://www.ufo.no/english/articles/afu.html
http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/v46/ss991010.htm
http://www.jp-petit.com/Site_Anglais/Ummo_Book/Ummo_Book1/Ummo_Book1.htm
http://wintersteel.homestead.com/files/JamesArticles/Silver_Bug.htm
http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/combat-diaries/diary14chapter_6.htm
http://www.afu.info/
http://d.webring.com/hub?ring=ufoalliance&id=26&hub
http://www.caus.org/home.shtml
http://www.aliensonearth.com/
http://www.fsr.org.uk/FSRMain.htm
http://www.think-aboutit.com/ufo/
http://www.ufoarea.com/
http://users.erols.com/feanor17/Ufo.html

As you can see, its rather a lot of stuff and feel free to make of this eclectic information what you will - the point is many of the sites Fukushi points to regarding ideas concerning UFO propulsion, if not dealing with certain idea's proposed by Tesla himself direct are founded on certain physical idea's Tesla believed to be true.

Fukushi is obviously a very great expert on everything relating to the work of Nikola Tesla.

Now Click Here....

Patently, I'm nothing more than a swindler and a charlatan, a debunker of the first order only interested in peddling my own crazy idea's, etc, etc... Yet anyone who professes to know even the very basics concerning the work of Tesla couldn't possibly fail to recognise the arrangement as being anything other than being a simple, straightforward application of a bog ordinary rotary motion Tesla Induction Coil.

It's one of Tesla's most enduring legacies to the actual workings of the 20th and 21st century, the principals under which it works exemplify and underpin every subsequent idea Tesla ever had and it works in exactly the way described in the context of the site you're looking at.

But, according to Fukushi, its all made up nonsense...

Now, you'll find this idea of Tesla's utilised the world over. Anything which isn't pre-fixed with the word Solar and calls itself a Power-Station utilises devices exactly such as these for generating electrical power. That includes hydro-electric and nuclear power stations. Anything that claims to be an AC Generator, got one of these things in it. If you own a car, pop the bonnet have a poke around for the Alternator - yup, there's an application of Tesla right there in your humble motor and you'll be keen to note, switching the engine on and letting the Alternator kick in doesn't magically levitate your car majestically into the air nor produce so much as a moist raspberries worth of propulsive force in the process.

All it does is top up your battery whilst the engines running and the reasons why are exactly as it says in a standard physics book.

Nothing like the way these sites Fukushi knows everything there is to know about will tell you Tesla's ideas work.

Now, let me tell you about Tesla. Genius is a much over used word, anyone can be called it. When describing a man like Tesla, protégé is by far the best term of all. He came from a relatively humble background, was largely self taught as a child, and demonstrated an innate understanding of the workings of electromagnetism and electricity as in instinct streets ahead of literally all of his contemporaries of the day.

It was actually reading about chaps like Nikola Tesla as a kid that got me untested in science in the first place and its a course I've happily followed ever since, though you must remember, chaps of my generation didn't grow up with an internet - so we simply had to make do with dull, boring old things like actual facts to do our thinking with....

Tesla's contribution to the 20th Century is beyond question, and it was a success eminently well recognised within his own lifetime. However, Tesla's genius tended to reside within his own field of expertise pretty much exclusively. When it came to the way things worked outside that field of understanding, Tesla could and very often did exhibit a curious lack of proper understanding regarding very basic, elementary physical principals.

Success and recognition for his accomplishments meant Tesla could both say and do, scientifically speaking, pretty much whatever he wanted - but for a self possessed man, which he was very, sometimes great success can be the very worst thing a chap can have thrust upon him.

Acknowledged as a genius increasingly Tesla found his idea's moving inexorably away from mainstream science into the world of the purely fantastic - the whole thing came to something of a head round about 1905 when, after being commissioned by possibly one of the worlds most powerful men at the time, JP Morgan I believe, to construct a fantastical "world system" broadcast tower to the tune of around $1,000,000 of Morgans hard earned dollars only to be trumped completely by Marconi's $25 dollar set-up wireless transmission, Tesla found himself suddenly on hard times...

Penniless and left to his own devices he underwent a nervous breakdown and his stock with the establishment, nor his professional career, never really recovered.

He denounced Einstein an idiot, pottered around in his local park in his slippers and died in relative obscurity and virtual paupery in around 1943.

In the intervening years between his fall from grace and his death at over the age of 70 there was much talk about Tesla's ideas - he proposed death-rays and beamed electrical energy, he proposed many and fabulous things and posthumously, after his death, some of these fantastical idea's were actually tried out at a cost of millions of dollars all to no avail.

Simply because, though brilliant, Tesla was prone to be one of those many individuals who didn't apply any proper sort of effective "review" on their thinking. He'd leap ahead in certainty of things working in certain ways that even a casual perusal of a physics book would have told him straight off that actually, this isn't going to work.

But Tesla was Tesla. He was so used to being absolutely right, it often never occurred to him that he could be wrong - even when he was publicly and manifestly way off beam. He'd never see the critical error in his own thinking.

And the problem with the sort of material Fukushi here is steeped to the eyeballs in is that these sites proclaiming revelation and success in their researches based on the work and idea's of Tesla take as their start point the belief absolute that many of Tesla's mere posturings actually worked and yielded positive results.

They didn't. Tesla himself lived a very long life and, even after 1905 could still find the ear of practically any potentate or sponsor in the world to finance his researches - but the fact of the matter was he never pulled any of these wilder things off.

I'm not just being a debunker here - this is simply history and I find it somewhat incredible that a person such as Fukushi here, with all his expert knowledge of all these wild and incredible things can actually look directly at an application of the very work the man he claims to know so much about as sited here.... and still contrive decry it as purely non-scientific fraud - simply because it deals with Tesla's idea's in the way they actually work.

Now as Oli has perfectly correctly tried to point out here and will no doubt be completely ignored because he's not saying "Oh gosh, Browns Ion Drive - definitely the key to UFO propulsion!" because it simply doesn't give enough kick within the gravitational influence of a planet to move anything, let alone its own mass....

Try just reading a physics book duendy. Just try. Look up terms like propulsion, gravity, electromagnetism. Understand how they actually work in the real world and then, if you must, wade through the sort of crap your going to be foisted with regarding UFO propulsion.

Proof comes from what is actually possible old man, so too does evidence.

And as I said in my reply - I meant exactly what I actually said using the words I actually used. Paraphrasing it all every-way-to-Sunday doesn't change a single word of what I said. I generally tend to mean exactly what I say on the tin...

Except those times, obviously, when I don't.

Regards as always,

A

 

[duendy]

before i respond in full, let me justask you this:

arrrre you asserting that Eveeeery single EVER reported account and documented evidence of a UFO --as in pointing to advanced technology--has been false?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

before i respond in full, let me justask you this:

arrrre you asserting that Eveeeery single EVER reported account and documented evidence of a UFO --as in pointing to advanced technology--has been false?

I'm saying its deeply misguided. A presumption, not in anyway based on fact but supposition - absolutely no different from the logic that points to a UFO and states "Oh, must be Aliens. No other explanation possible. Can't possibly explain it any other way therefore it must be an irrefutable fact..."

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is it, exactly, about UFO's that demand "advanced technology" in order to explain them, precisely?

 

[duendy]

I'm saying its deeply misguided. A presumption, not in anyway based on fact but supposition - absolutely no different from the logic that points to a UFO and states "Oh, must be Aliens. No other explanation possible. Can't possibly explain it any other way therefore it must be an irrefutable fact..."

me::: a UFO is a UFO. it seems to me from where i am standing it is you and others of the 'sceptical' brigade who demand an explanatory closure
....as in eg., 'it simply MUST be something else dear boy'

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself what is it, exactly, about UFO's that demand "advanced technology" in order to explain them, precisely?

yes. the fact of how they have been reported to move....they dont look like planes/aircraft we are familar with....some claim to have been zapped up by weird beams into them, and people have seen such from an outside observation point...etceteraaaa

 

[Mr Anonymous]

yes. the fact of how they have been reported to move....they dont look like planes/aircraft we are familar with....

Granted, UFO's by all accounts don't look or move like conventional aircraft - that's why they put the U in Unidentified Flying Object. Can't really say much about "beams" zapping people up and so forth, but unusal shape and movement, that's common to all UFO sightings.

But you use the term "we are familiar with.."

What's the most advanced aircraft you can think of, and why?

 

[duendy]

the black triangular plan...not sure of its name...'stealth bomber'?
why....cause it does look a bit like what you'd call UFO....also in reports of UFOs triangular craft have been seen.....?

 

[Fukushi]

I never even said anything about Tesla,...

And I never said anything about Aliens either,...

You are very sick

 

[Mr Anonymous]

the black triangular plan...not sure of its name...'stealth bomber'?
why....cause it does look a bit like what you'd call UFO....also in reports of UFOs triangular craft have been seen.....?

The B2 Spirit, commonly known as the Stealth Bomber. Why do you consider it advanced? Is it just the look of the thing or the actual technology of it?

I never even said anything about Tesla,...

You pointed to a crap load of web sites theorising about UFO propulsion and proclaimed them true genuine "21st Century Physics" - every last single one of them either sites Tesla's work direct or else claims unbridled "success" in demonstrating idea's Tesla propagated with a vehement degree of browbeating arrogance directed specifically at me completely unwarranted to anything I myself had directed at you in anyway personally. You said plenty about Tesla Fukushi, thing of it is you haven't the first wit about what you're actually talking about and whatever patience I may have been prepared to afford you pissed out the window with the gob-shite I've been putting up with from you.

It's not your lack of any form of scientific grounding that makes you an arse Fukushi - a lack of understanding never made a fool out of anyone. If we're truly alive we are all in a state of continual learning - So no, its not the fact you don't actually understand the first stroke about physics that makes you an arse.

It's your manners.

Every single other person who has taken part in this thread has managed to conduct themselves with grace - no body else has been slinging insults towards other posters, only you.

Now either buck your bladdy ideas up or piss off. You're bladdy right I'm sick, mostly of you.

 

[duendy]

why do i think the black triangular craft--stealth bomber is advanced?........i am guessing it is one of the most advanced technological tings overtly known about...yes. buti still stick wit my ....intuition, inspird by various diverse forms of inquiry, that there exist suppressed forms of advanced technology

nowwww. i asked a question hereshortwhile ago, and have misplaced it and tepossible answer

now i asked this: you are knwoing about the Discolure Project right? where a number of peple conessedto secret forms of advanced technology. were they all lying in your opionion?.....why would they say what they said do you think?

 

[Fukushi]

I was about to say:

You're an awfull fuckwit yourself so don't bugger me with your crapheap shitload of unfounded baseless idiotic

Pseudo-scientific idears?

but then again, it didn't seem worth the effort to me,...considdering we have 'the' specialist in here with us, Mr.Anonimus himself! oh yes,...

by the way,...if you are trying to anoy me,...you certainly did,...I'm not the one who should fuck of my own thread,...

And I AM being nice to you,...consider that for a change.

:m:

thx

 

[Oli]

As a typical example of the "professionalism" used in research by some of these sites, I came across a couple of photos on one of them headed "this aircraft is unknown" and "possibly taken at Area 51, definitely NOT an SR-71 Blackbird".
Which just happen to be, respectively, an uncredited CGI, by a guy called Adrian Mann, of a 1950s unbuilt Hawker extremely fast aircraft, and the other is a still from a TV advert for a motorbike (IIRC) in which the producer wanted to give a high-tech future feel to the ad/ bike by mocking up something that looked fast.

 

[duendy]

errrrr i am awaremy question, which i now have repeated several times seems to be being ignored....the question is: yu are all now familar with the Disclosure Project?....where tere ws a gathering of individuals many of tem high ranking, who confessed that there IS secret advanced technology.

why would ou say they said, if yu believe it isn't true?....and how can you prove they are lying?