UAP and Skinwalker Ranch News and Discussion

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 320 comments
  • 32,992 views
It's not even a photo. It's a drawing somebody did based on someone else's description. Thus putting the "out there" into "the truth is out there", in my opinion.
Nobody is asking you to accept any kind of "truth" based on what is clearly presented as an artist's recreation. This thread is for the discussion of unidentified phenomena.

There is a long body of evidence, compounding more rapidly over the past few years, that UAP have been affecting US Navy fleet operations in the Atlantic, Pacific and beyond. That development has become officially accepted fact and now is under heightened scrutiny and reporting by affected agencies, government wide, including Congress.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is asking you to accept any kind of "truth" based on what is clearly presented as an artist's recreation. This thread is for the discussion of unidentified phenomena.

I think he was responding to...

I'm gonna need more than a photo, and it's gonna need to be in HD, close up, and with no obnoxious camera shake.

...because clearly setting the evidential bar higher than an DCS-based artist's impression and "we promise that people On The Inside told us this" is just poor judgement.
 
I think he was responding to...



...because clearly setting the evidential bar higher than an DCS-based artist's impression and "we promise that people On The Inside told us this" is just poor judgement.
Look, I think the fact that the photo hasn't been released is just proof that it's a real foo fighter otherwise if it were a hoax then the military would've posted it to show us. Aliens.
 
Last edited:
Look, I think the fact that the photo hasn't been released is just proof that it's a real foo fighter otherwise if it were a hoax then the military would've posted it to show us. Aliens.

The military, intel, elected government and this thread is doing everything possible to avoid using the term "aliens". There is absolutely no known evidence to show that is the case. Sure, the phenomena are real, but nobody knows who or what is behind it. Grudgingly they are giving up on the idea that the Chinese, Russians, Iranians or highly classified US agency are the source, and they do mention the possibility of non-human intelligences. But that could mean a lot of things short of ET. The first thing they are trying to determine is how it works and if it poses a threat. So until more evidence comes to light, we will avoid that term in this thread.
 
@Dotini you haven't been going nuts with the UFO declassification yet. I'm not really sure what the status is on that effort yet because the Covid bill is only a few weeks old. I'm hoping we see something more concrete for sure.

I remain skeptical about all this. I trust our fighter pilots, they're some of the best pilots and most reasonable and intelligent people in the world with the sharpest eyes and level-headed attitudes, but I also know from my own limited experience at low altitudes that it's extremely difficult to identify anything at long distances, and judging the relative motion of multiple moving objects can throw you for a loop. There have been numerous things I couldn't identify, some of which were moving in ways that I couldn't explain either, but I disregarded them as optical illusions. Not once have I been particularly curious about something I couldn't explain but that might also because there just wasn't enough evidence at the time to suggest it was anything weirder than I'd seen before. Watching things that can be explained by common idiocy has always been more entertaining and concerning than any UFO-related stuff.

Hopefully (cough cough) I've got a long career ahead and will see something concerning at some point and if I do I'll share it, probably without pictures because fumbling around for my phone isn't usually at the front of my mind when flying. Just like other activities, I won't knock UFOs until I try it.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. For some, that is a tempting alternative to the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis).
https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2021/01/ufos-9-keys-that-invalidate.html

Edit:
Pais effect officially said not found.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...s-up-about-its-bizarre-ufo-patent-experiments

Edit 2:

"The Pais emails sound like the jargon filled ramblings of a mad scientist, but the Pentagon does have a history of successfully fostering cutting edge technology. More than 100 years ago, nuclear weapons were science fiction. GPS, the TOR network, and the internet itself all began life as Pentagon programs. Perhaps the Navy will soon revolutionize the way we think about energy and transportation."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ad...h-it-says-will-engineer-the-fabric-of-reality

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8871349
 
Last edited:
Agreed. For some, that is a tempting alternative to the ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis).
https://ufocon.blogspot.com/2021/01/ufos-9-keys-that-invalidate.html

On the balance of available evidence it's equally credible.

The Pais emails sound like the jargon filled ramblings of a mad scientist, but the Pentagon does have a history of successfully fostering cutting edge technology. More than 100 years ago, nuclear weapons were science fiction. GPS, the TOR network, and the internet itself all began life as Pentagon programs. Perhaps the Navy will soon revolutionize the way we think about energy and transportation."

The internet was an implementation of packet-switching by ARPA, but they didn't invent it (and the scientists involved never claimed to), and it didn't actually work very well because nobody could standardise the wildly-varying host operating systems. It was never intended to be a communication network and it didn't achieve that functionality until much later. It didn't even have TCP/IP in the spec until the early 80s. By the time that ARPANET came to life it was wildly divorced from any military origins, but I'm ranting now.

I guess your paragraph was meant to tell us that fanciful things can exist because The Pentagon can eventually make them?
 
On the balance of available evidence it's equally credible.

The internet was an implementation of packet-switching by ARPA, but they didn't invent it (and the scientists involved never claimed to), and it didn't actually work very well because nobody could standardise the wildly-varying host operating systems. It was never intended to be a communication network and it didn't achieve that functionality until much later. It didn't even have TCP/IP in the spec until the early 80s. By the time that ARPANET came to life it was wildly divorced from any military origins, but I'm ranting now.

I guess your paragraph was meant to tell us that fanciful things can exist because The Pentagon can eventually make them?

No, the paragraph quoted from Vice was meant to convey their opinion for your consideration. Whether UAP/UFO technology exists or not isn't sufficiently established, IMHO. The viewpoint I have consistently tried to take is that it may not, and that the entire range of phenomena may have more to do with humanity, experience and consciousness than with any technology, military or alien. But I could be wrong. The important thing is to not leap to conclusions about unknown phenomena. Your opinion, fairy faith or not, is just as interesting as anyone else's at this point.
 
Yes, indeed. So, resisting the urge to reach conclusions, how are we to react to major media (NY Times), military institutions (US Navy, Pentagon), and individual pilots and scientists (Fravor, Pais, Puthoff) who tell us the phenomena are real, the technology is real, and is actively interfering with military operations?

The common underlying worldview known as "scientific materialism" or "scientism", as defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists.

Yet our world is awash in phenomena that defy both physics and rational explanation, but have been endorsed as real by media, institutions, pilots and scientists.

Are we to allow our cherished worldview to be challenged? Are we destined to suffer the cognitive dissonance of reconciling conflicting worldviews?
 
Last edited:
Are we to allow our cherished worldview to be challenged?

Passing over the loading of "cherished" I think it's reasonable to allow worldviews to be challenged based on the viewshed. I've said before that much of what you post requires faith, that's because there is no good evidence to support it.

It might be more accurate to describe that cherishing as a natural confidence in an empirically-supported evidential position.

Are we destined to suffer the cognitive dissonance of reconciling conflicting worldviews?

Yes, that's how societies work.
 
So, resisting the urge to reach conclusions, how are we to react to major media (NY Times), military institutions (US Navy, Pentagon), and individual pilots and scientists (Fravor, Pais, Puthoff) who tell us the phenomena are real, the technology is real, and is actively interfering with military operations?
With healthy skepticism. None of these individual entities have been proven to be unimpeachable, so why would they be together?

And while speculation can be entertaining, either engaging in it or observing others doing so, it's not itself a basis for scientific inquiry.

So...grain of salt. Or rather many.
 
post requires faith
I don't know that posts require faith. I think it is enough to inform, stimulate imagination and ask interesting questions. Particularly in a topic which is considered unexplained.
 
Last edited:
I ran across this fundamental explanation of the phenomena, it looked intriguing, so I thought I'd pass it along. It makes reference to quantum gravity, and comes to a conclusion I'm loathe to agree with. But, as always, I could be wrong.

https://www.uaptheory.com


A Fundamental Explanation of UAPs
The reason we made a website for this is due to its importance and to inform everyone. Share it!
We present a theory of how UAPs work that explains everything one can observe about them.
By understanding them, we can also explain their origin and nature. We aim to settle the matter once and for all.

The structure of this page follows the scientific method.
Data -> Hypothesis -> Predictions -> Observation


Contents [show]

Foreword
Aligning Your Expectations With the Current State of Research

Given the nature of the topic discussed here, we wish to make something very clear to you. The stigma surrounding the topic of UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) and their possible non-mundane explanation is outdated and should have started to go away with the discovery of habitable exoplanets. Our capability to find such planets is still new and it took until now to get good statistics. Barely anyone has had time to update their views and expectations accordingly, so let’s do that real quick.

We can now estimate there are 6 billion habitable Earth-like planets in our galaxy, and in 2020, 24 planets were identified to be more habitable than the Earth, which is 0.6% of all the planets currently known. Applied to the whole galaxy, this leads us to expect on the order of 1 billion such planets: 6 of them can be expected within 50 light years and are thus right around the corner. The galaxy is not only vast in size and time but also in worlds. Even sci-fi has underestimated this abundance.

Because of this new picture of the galaxy, our expectations of what is out there needs to change entirely. Since there are planets we expect to be more suitable for life than Earth, we also have to expect complex life to be out there, or it would be illogical. The likelihood of other civilizations even in our vicinity has increased so dramatically that such considerations can no longer be subject to ridicule without dismissing exoplanet research. Prior skepticism about UAPs was certainly warranted due to lack of credible data (and too much nonsense surrounding this topic). Moreover, even the Pentagon and US Navy have publicly acknowledged the reality of these objects and their maneuvers, not even being the first nation to do so. The time has come to take this topic very seriously.

On this website, we present a fundamental theory for the propulsion system of UAPs, which allows us to predict their motions, behaviors, and origin with surprising ease once we understand what these devices are actually doing. The data needed to come to a conclusion is already available and only required a theory to explain it.

Overview
  1. We present a theory and qualitative explanation for the physics of UAPs and discuss their likely origin.
  2. From the theory, we make a list of predictions that can be tested observationally. We want Navy personnel to be aware of these.
  3. We provide evidence of these observations within the data that is already available.
  4. For general readers, we have prepared additional pages with more detailed explanations of some of the physics involved.
Assumption
In April 2020, the US defense department and Navy released three declassified UAP videos, which are also surrounded by information given by some of the Navy personnel involved in the incidents. This imparts a credibility to the reality of UAPs that did not exist prior to this time, and we can now accept the nature of the objects as a scientific topic of investigation. We assume this additional information to be factual since the Pentagon intended to “clear up misconceptions” and the personnel was permitted to come forward with their accounts of the incident.

Understanding UAPs
Today, carrier strike groups track UAPs with multiple high-fidelity radar systems, infra-red systems, sonar systems (if they enter the water), and Navy personnel, all corroborating the information. A glitch within an individual system cannot occur across all platforms simultaneously in exactly the same way. From this, we know for sure how these objects move, their speed, and their accelerations. Modern radar systems provide 3D motion data across the entire battle space surrounding carrier strike groups. The videos so far officially released are only a small part of the information the Navy has available. Radar data on speed and maneuvers are far more useful than visually observed motions.

Yet there is only one piece of information we really need in order to figure out how UAPs work: their accelerations.


Visualization of the “Tic-Tac” engagement. Image Credit: Brian Bell
UAPs demonstrate linear accelerations within one second to speeds higher than ordinary aircraft. They are also able to maneuver around sharp angles.

Example: At one point during the 2004 “Tic Tac” incident, the UAP moved (on the radar) from 80,000 ft to various altitudes from 28,000 ft to 50 ft above sea level in 0.78 seconds. A motion in that time frame along, say, 60,000 ft distance yields accelerations above 12,000 g-forces and speeds above 100,000 mph if we assume half the distance was used to accelerate and the other half to decelerate.

Routinely, UAPs are measured and observed to suddenly move very quickly, starting at hundreds of g-forces to the extreme case as the one described above.

The Main Argument
The only thing we are going to put into the theory are the high accelerations of these material objects and require them to be compatible with the laws of motion. We do this by having the insight that these accelerations are too large and thus cannot actually be there. There is indeed one way the laws of physics will allow an object to move and even get faster without feeling any accelerations. This happens if you move along a geodesic of spacetime.

Geodesics, simply put, are straight lines on a curved surface and are thus different depending on the shape of the surface. You can think of the spacetime in which we exist as a surface which has curvature on it produced by masses (energy) placed in that spacetime. Curved spacetime also has geodesics, which are the paths we all take if we are freely falling. A baseball moves on a geodesic, and so do satellites, the moon, the space station. Geodesics are the natural path you take through spacetime if nothing pushes you elsewhere, and that is why astronauts are in zero gravity. For a more detailed explanation of geodesics, see this page.

Now you see why a UAP can have no accelerations on it as long as it moves on a geodesic. But there is a problem: Geodesics depend on the curvature of spacetime and are fixed. But the UAP can navigate however it wants. This can only work if the UAPs has an exotic propulsion system that is able to create its own geodesics by curving the spacetime near it into the shape required. This would enable the UAP to freely fall along any intended trajectory. By doing so, no matter how it moves, the UAP itself would experience no accelerations at all.

Consider the elegance of what we just did. We only looked at the high accelerations of these objects and required them to be consistent with the laws of physics instead of defying them. By making these motions consistent with physics, an exotic gravitational propulsion system is forced on us. We didn’t put this in, we were lead to it as a consequence. Without such a propulsion system, the laws of physics get broken by these objects. If you find such technology implausible at the moment, consider that breaking the laws of physics would be far more implausible than that.

Let us run with this insight and find out what the consequences of such a propulsion system would be. That is, if it exists, what does it imply and can we test whether it’s true?

Our Hypothesis
As derived above, UAPs create distortions in spacetime to create geodesics along which they move free of accelerations.

Plausibility
Attention, this section is not trivial but also not necessary to move forward, so you can skip it if its too much. Its purpose is to give you a sense and appreciation of how an engine that distorts spacetime is likely going to work, even without knowing how to build one.

General relativity itself does not seem to allow a gravity propulsion system because that requires either too much energy or exotic forms of energy. But general relativity is not a quantum theory and thus not complete.

See, every time a deeper theory of the universe is formulated, it doesn’t render the old theories wrong but adds to them.

Classical Newtonian mechanics is what everybody learns in school. Quantum mechanics and special relativity are two deeper theories than that. But if you put low everyday velocities into special relativity, then relativity turns back into classical mechanics. And if you describe large everyday objects with quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics also turns back into classical physics. General relativity also turns back into Newtonian gravity in the limit of weak gravitational fields. This means that Newtonian physics overall is actually the limit of large & slow objects of these deeper theories.

But these deeper theories contain a lot more details. Quantum effects, for instance, that are added to our understanding of the world, new effects that we can exploit to create technology like computers. Modern technology is an exploitation of quantum effects that Newtonian physics does not contain.

There is a level still left beyond our deepest theories: quantum gravity, a description of spacetime and its curvature (gravitation) in the form of a quantum theory. Like before, this deeper theory will reproduce general relativity but with some corrections and additions to it: quantum effects in spacetime itself. If we had this theory finished already, we would be able to exploit those new effects and manipulate spacetime and its curvature quantum mechanically.

It may surprise you but we are actually not entirely clueless about quantum gravity anymore. Despite the fact that a complete theory does not yet exist, we can see where the journey is headed.

entanglement-space.jpg

Space itself is the entanglement of quantum bits that exist on the universe’s horizon (the surface of the bubble, so to speak).
In recent years, beginning with the work of Maldacena (in this paper), we are starting to see how space works at the quantum level. Since 2009, we understand that space turns out to be a network of quantum bits that are all entangled with each other (here’s a section of a program where this is explained).

These quantum bits correspond to the points of the space they describe, and the connection of all the points in space with each other is actually the entanglement between the quantum bits. So space and entangled quantum information is the same thing. The amount of entanglement of two bits determines how close their corresponding spatial points are. More entanglement = close. Less entanglement = far away. We thus understand what space is, what distances in that space are, and finally what motion really is. Motions are changes in the amount of entanglement of a quantum bit with all the others.

Gravitation (the curvature of spacetime) then appears to be nothing else but a property of said quantum entanglement network that has to do with its entropy. Such formulations are beginning to be attempted, and already show great promise. For example, it turns out that the famous dark matter may not even exist, as the additional gravity we see out there appears to be a quantum correction to general relativity. A lot more work needs to be done on this approach but we have been seeing for quite some time that gravity is going to have some type of an entropy explanation.

If we had a complete theory of quantum gravity (a complete description of the entanglement network) then we should be able to create technology to manipulate that network just as we can build quantum computers by knowing quantum mechanics, which is a technology that sounds just as much like science fiction as a gravity propulsion system. But we actually have quantum computers.

Instead of thinking about this from the old classical perspective, you can now think of it from a quantum perspective. Instead of wastefully putting huge energies in particular places to warp the spacetime, we could instead very precisely and with much less energy manipulate the entanglement network, which is equivalent to changing the geometry of the spacetime.

This means the hypothetical propulsion system of UAPs is applied quantum gravity in the same way that a quantum computer is applied quantum mechanics. We do know geometries in general relativity that move at high speeds (including faster than light) so even interstellar travel would be enabled by this technology.


Predictions
According to our insight, UAPs are not flying. They are falling.

Requiring that UAPs are consistent with the laws of motion lead us to a gravity drive, for lack of a better term, which has the following implications:

  1. UAPs should be round or geometrical as there is no preferred forward-facing direction. Since they use spacetime as their control surface, they need no wings or afterburners. (Pause for a second and note that we just obtained the known designs of UAPs only from our demand that UAPs don’t break the laws of physics. Their shape just pops out of it as a consequence without putting it in first.)
  2. UAPs can maneuver in sharp angles at high speeds because they move on geodesics and are in zero G.
  3. Particles are moving along the curved geometry of the space surrounding them, avoiding the craft. Thus, UAPs have an envelope of vacuum around them and can move without friction both in air and water, which they can enter and exit without impedance. They can move faster than would be possible for any craft that is in contact with the air or water.
  4. UAPs move very quietly or silently, unlike jets. They may not create a sonic boom when going super sonic.
  5. We should see gravitational lensing around UAPs when they maneuver as they must change the geometry of their distortion field to change their trajectory. If this optical effect is large enough, we should see the UAP change its shape as it accelerates or turns. We may also see the background of the UAP distorted in its vicinity.
Point 5 is the most important one. As light enters and exists the distortion field, the light paths follow the curvature of the spacetime and exit at different angles. Let us say this clearly:

You don’t see a UAP directly since you are always seeing it through the distortion field – like an object in a distorted glass container.

If the UAP wants to maneuver or change its speed, it must change the local distortion of the spacetime to create a different geodesic, so it falls into a different direction. We should then see the object change its shape because the light paths change with the geometry of the field.

This is a critically important point and we have never seen anyone mention it before. UAPs should generally change their apparent shape as they maneuver. We are going to dissect this further below. Note that we can only expect this while they maneuver or accelerate because once this is done they may continue moving at a constant speed. Motion at a constant speed doesn’t require a distortion field. This means we can still see a UAP mostly undistorted but have to look for changes in its shape when it maneuvers.

  1. UAPs can be made invisible from below by choosing the distortion field in such a way that light going down from the craft is lensed back up or to the sides. From those upwards positions, we should hence be able to see one or more mirages of the UAP if such a cloak is active.
  2. UAPs can’t be cloaked and should appear undistored if they intend to emit a beam, either to scan the environment, map the ground, or attack. Otherwise, any beam would be lensed in some other direction rather than go where it is meant to go.
  3. UAPs may appear like they are surrounded by glass since it has an envelope of vacuum around it. Light moves from air into that vacuum and then back into the air as it exits. When light moves from air to vacuum, it gets refracted partially reflected, just like entering glass or other media. At high altitudes, direct sunlight may be lensed, reflected, and refracted to produce gleaming spots or rings around the UAP. A pilot can then have the false impression the UAP is surrounded by glass.
  4. The energy output of UAPs should be significant, causing the air to heat up and emit visible light (like a light bulb). We can expect this but it’s clear this will depend on the design and speed of the craft. If a UAP is cloaked, it may run on low energy and speed to avoid detection. So we cannot rule out that it is possible to avoid the thermal radiation depending on circumstances or craft designs.
  5. Some UAPs should display conspicuous rotations before disappearing. Since the maximum speed of any craft needs its engine to run at maximum capacity, we expect a UAP to use all of its spacetime manipulating capability to accelerate to its top speed. But the engine is normally used to hold the object up against Earth’s gravity and to make maneuvers, which we can expect to require a particular orientation of the craft depending on its design (likely pointing the engine down or up). To switch from normal maneuvers to its top speed would then require the object to rotate towards the travel point in order to focus the engine in that direction, creating something akin to an Alcubierre metric, which is a geometry where spacetime is contracted in front of the craft and expanded behind it. At least with some UAP designs, in particular flat designs, we expect a rotation of the craft before a jump to top speeds. Spherical or cube shaped UAPs may not need this since the field generators can be placed all around the shape of the craft.
Before we get into any observations, note that most of these points are commonly known about UAPs. So by requiring that the laws of motion are not broken by these vehicles, we are ultimately lead to this list of consequences that fits every observable known about UAPs – and then some! All of these commonly observed phenomena are actually manifestations of a single technology. UAPs have never defied physics, they only seem to.

Observations & Verification
All of the predictions above follow from the design of the engine alone. The points we need to discuss the most are 5. and 6. as gravitational lensing is the best observable to demonstrate the nature of the propulsion system.

It is already known that when you look at a UAP, it is notoriously difficult to understand what shape it may be. We are going to understand this fully once we look at the best video evidence that is publicly available. Before we can get into it, we need to talk a little bit about gravitational lensing.

The hubble space telescope sees gravitational lensing all over the place. Galaxies create huge distortions in spacetime due to their presence and as light propagates through that field, light paths are bent before arriving at our camera. This produces two main types of distortions in the image of galaxies and stars.

Einstein Ring
black-hole-lens.gif


Simulation of a black hole moving in front of a galaxy. The light is lensed around it in the form of a ring. Rings, or pieces of rings, are very commonly observed.

Einstein Cross
einstein-cross-300x290.jpg


Another common occurrence are duplicates of the same object. The four lights on either side all show the same quasar who’s light gets lensed around a galaxy in the middle and comes to the camera from multiple sides.

Now, let’s look at some examples

An illustration of how an Einstein cross comes about. Different light paths get lensed by the galaxy in the way between the telescope and the light source.

A collection of Einstein crosses, all of which are duplicates of the same objects.

Lots of Einstein rings, or sections of rings, as galaxies are lensed into ring shapes.

Dissecting UAP Footage
2013 Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
We are going to analyze what is likely the best footage of a UAP available. It is uncut and shows over 3 minutes of footage of a UAP moving low over the surrounding area of Rafael Hernandez airport and dives into the ocean, where a second UAP of the same shape appears to be present.

Because of its low altitude, we can see the background behind the object and can look for the following effects: gravitational lensing of the background around the UAP, apparent shape-shifting of the UAP whenever it maneuvers due to changes in the distortion field, unimpeded motion through water, and partial invisibility. Note that the white rim around the object is an effect of the thermal camera and common with such systems. It does not mean there is low temperature around the craft and it is not the lensing we are talking about.

This is a Homeland Security leaked thermal video from April 25th, 2013, 9:20 pm local time filmed by a DHC-8 Turboprop aircraft controlled by the US Customs and Border Protection. The video was obtained from an official source on October 20th, 2013, whose identity (for reasons of persecution) remained confidential. All frames of the video have been analyzed, dissected, and vetted to be real.

Below, you find the original footage and an AI upscale we have done at 1080P. Mind you, only use the original footage as evidence and the upscale for easier viewing if you wish. We have spent dozens of hours to analyze this footage frame by frame, as that and a keen eye is required to really highlight the effects.

Original low res footage

AI Upscale 1080P footage

1. Duplication
Remember that in order to navigate, the craft needs to change the geometry of the distortion field, thus changing the gravitational lense. This causes light from the object to be lensed towards or away from the camera in different ways, changing the apparent shape of the object.

During the video, you can see several moments where a mirage of the object appears right above it. Upon slow-motion inspection, we find the mirage appears out of thin air, being transparent at first and then becoming stronger, sometimes replacing the original shape of the craft entirely.

Here are several instances looped for you in order of their appearance.

ai-duplicate-0.gif


ai-duplicate-1.gif


ai-duplicate-2.gif


Our theory not only explains this but also makes it predictable. When the craft accelerates towards the camera, either by turning or decelerating when facing in the opposite direction, the distortion field changes and lenses light in this direction. It does this because to accelerate towards the camera, it has to create a gravitational downhill in that direction, and this is where the light gets lensed to. The object is making a sharp turn, which coincides with such a mirage.

As we are going to see further down, the object can also appear to shrink and disappear, which coincides with opposite accelerations. If we had cameras on opposite sides of the craft, we would see a mirage in one camera and invisibility in the other because the light from the invisible side is the light we see on the side featuring a mirage. So the light we are missing on one side is the extra light we get on the other.

ai-duplicate-3.gif
As the object changes its flight path, the distortion field shifts and we see into a direction where another view of the object gets lensed into the camera direction. We see the mirage appear above the original apparent shape. It is clearly above the object, not part of it.

ai-duplicate-4.gif
We are seeing two versions of the same object from two angles. The mirage at the top swallows and replaces the original apparent shape on the bottom. The object decelerates and turns due east when this happens, changing the distortion field as expected.

ai-duplicate-5.gif
Another instance where the original gets swapped out by a mirage as the object navigates differently. The object decelerates in this moment as well.

2. Invisibility
At many instances during the video, we see the craft shrinking to a smaller size, often the size of a small dot, and sometimes disappearing altogether for one or two frames. The craft then suddenly reappears, which seems to coincide with it leveling out again.

The shrinking seems to occur when the craft moves the opposite way of when it duplicates. From this we can understand what is happening here. When we see the object get smaller or disappear, an observer on the opposite side would see a mirage as that is where the missing light is going. For all instances where we see a mirage, an observer on the opposite side would see the craft get smaller or disappear. This is exactly what we would expect from a craft with a propulsion system that distorts spacetime as described.

ai-smaller-1.gif


Object gets smaller, then larger again.

ai-smaller-2.gif


Object gets smaller, then larger as it changes its direction and a mirage appears.

ai-small-to-large.gif

Object is small and gets larger as it changes its direction and a mirage appears.

ai-cloak-1.gif


Object disappears and reappears as it navigates. On the opposite side, we would see a mirage that swallows the craft, as we have seen in an example further up. You can even see how it is a mirror image of that process.

ai-cloak-2.gif


Same as before but not as strong.

ai-cloak-4.gif


The object accelerates strongly (over 200G) to 4-5 times its original speed and becomes barely visible as it moves towards the sea. Nothing is occluding the view. We are aware of eyewitness testimony taken on location, saying the object looked like a forward facing horseshoe and turned into a sphere as it raced to the sea.

3. Background Lensing
Since the UAP is seen from above, we can observe how light from background objects moves past it and get lensed. The entire video features such lensing effects but they require a keen eye and patience to spot as you go from frame to frame. When looking at the object moving, the glassy looking lens around it is noticeable best while it moves. Screenshots or slowed down loops don’t do it justice.

Note: again, in this thermal view, black his hot and white is cold. The object appears as hot as truck engines driving on the street. Thermal camera systems like this generally sharpen the image, causing whiteness surrounding objects. This white rim is not the distortion field we are talking about, though it does seem to be influenced by it, as the field changes the apparent dimensions and light around the object.

Here is a collection of noteworthy moments.

environment-lensing-1.gif


Lines on the field get bent as the UAP moves above them in our line of sight. This is easily visible in the upscale as the AI makes the lines stronger but the same can be observed in the original low res footage. Circular bent lines and shapes are seen throughout the video.

environment-lensing-2.gif


As the object leaves the field, its dark edge appears to stick to the object. This is because light that would normally move past the object gets lensed around it and goes towards to camera.

environment-lensing-3.gif


The edge of the water of this pond gets seemingly squeezed as the object moves across it.

lensing-over-edge-low-res.gif

(Low res footage) – As the object passes the runway, one frame perfectly catches it just above the line between light and dark areas. This line gets lensed around the object above and below and makes curved shapes. Also, the dark background lenses around the object and exits darker (hotter), making a darker ring.

lensing-over-edge-ai.gif

(Upscaled footage) – Here we see the same scene in the upscaled footage.

lensing-over-edge.jpg

A sketch of what we are focusing on in this clip. We have no way of knowing what the distortion field really looks like, though it is certainly more complicated than a simple spherical field. However, we can see a clear lensing effect as though the light was simply moving around the object from this angle.

shape-shifting.gif


Observe the dark ring around the object. Lensing around the object is confined to a particular radius, which shows us the size of the distortion field. The dark ring is light coming from the object itself that gets lensed back to the camera.

4. Diving and Second Object
Near the end of the video, we see the object dive into the Atlantic and meet a second craft of the same apparent shape. The camera operator zooms in and we can see a clearer view of the object, appearing as multiple patches that are connected to each other. What’s more, the object retains its heat and moves at around 100 mph, only 20 mph less than its average speed in the air, demonstrating that the water does not impede its motions, something that would be impossible for any craft that is in contact with the surrounding air or fluid.

We note that in certain areas of the world, many locals, especially fishermen, have reported seeing such objects move in and out of the sea. Given that we now have video evidence of such an event, we see that accounts from the public cannot simply be dismissed.

dive-einstein-cross.gif

The object enters the water without impedance. Some of parts of it appear dark, as there are likely certain places on the object that are hot while the glassy shape surrounding them is the distortion field. As it enters, water has to move around the object, following the distortion field and occluding the view partially.

dive-sea-einstein-cross.gif

Moving right along the surface of the water, the bottom dark spot appearing like a reflection. All of the spots remain within a noticeable radius that seems to be surrounded by a transparent sphere.

dive-moving-in-water.gif

The object enters the water quickly and without slowing down. Water is moving around the object, though it is difficult to spot due to its low temperature.

dive-motion-water.gif

The object is moving fast under the surface of the water at around 100 mph.

dive-motion-water-2.gif

The object emerges from the water without impedance and looks as though it is splitting in two.

dive-2nd-craft.gif

We see a second object of the same type and lensing pattern that is accompanying the first one. The two objects are moving together like wingmen. At first glance it looks as if the craft was really a unit of two craft locked together, which then separated in the water. This is unlikely because we already see two dark patches on the original craft when it enters the water and it also has the same size as each of the two objects. If it was two craft, it’s not mystifying because they can still appear the same size when split. What we are seeing is not the craft directly but the distortion field around them, which we can expect to be about the same size as before. A third and rather mundane possibility is that it’s a reflection, as we can see striking dark reflections of trees in a pond earlier in the video. The sea, however, is not as still as a pond and likely wouldn’t allow such clear reflections.

What’s more, in the 15 seconds before this clip, the craft’s speed went below 50 mph, thus dropping to around half the speed it had when it was moving under water at first. This is not surprising given that two wingmen are meeting up (or two craft exiting from a locked configuration), further showing they are under intelligent control.

But wait, does it really enter the water? It is difficult to see, so let’s slow it down and add a lot of contrast so we can see the splashing of the water as it moves around the distortion field. In fact, when it comes back out of the water, the water is clearly running and splashing around the object just as we’d expect it to look like.

uap-dive-contrast.gif


Skepticism & Reality
We used to be skeptics about UAPs before the Pentagon release, so we know this type of person very well. Skeptics see UAPs on the same level as believing in ghosts, so the possibility is not even an option to them and they will always come up with a mundane alternative. Even the official Pentagon videos get explained away as birds, flares, or airliners despite the Navy having exact radar tracking data of their motions, high-res videos of these objects, and had experts with decades of experience look at it, yet they were unable to identify these objects. But a skeptic with only a cut low-res video is somehow able to figure out its mundane nature and then decides it is true. Do you see how ludicrous and arrogant this is? We know, we used to be this way, and it is how all evidence on UAPs that finds its way to the public always gets destroyed.

For the video above, they claim it was a balloon or lantern which was mostly stationary. What they didn’t know is that we had the actual maintenance crew of this very camera and this very aircraft reach out to us, saying the object was not a balloon as it would never look like this in the camera. The UAP showed up on the airport’s radar without a transponder code (a ghost plane, essentially) and thus the airport was shut down for incoming and outgoing flights for a short time. Eyewitness accounts were taken on the ground, saying the object raced towards the sea and morphed its shape from a forward facing horseshoe to a sphere, corroborating what we see in the footage. Skeptics ignore all this extra information and keep claiming it’s a balloon.

Beyond this video, people that have researched UAPs for 30+ years have reached out to us. They told us that every credible account or footage they have ever seen or heard of exactly fits the observables predicted by this theory because these observables are very common with UAPs and always the same.

Militaries around the world are starting to order all their pilots to report UAP encounters (e.g. Japan did it in fall 2020) because the sensors that are now in use on ships have such a high fidelity that UAPs simply show up on the screen, performing speeds sometimes in excess of 100,000 mph. All of these militaries are taking this seriously as we are no longer talking about a strange light in the distance but actual 3D-radar tracking. Radar operators plainly see these objects and that is why we are starting to hear ever more accounts and details.

FLIR Footage
One of the videos officially acknowledged to be real by the defense department is called FLIR, filmed by a system designed to automatically track fast moving objects, in particular missiles. Operators of such equipment state that in thousands of hours of using it, the system never looses track of objects. If it is mounted on a vehicle which hits a large enough rock, causing a sudden move of the vehicle and its camera, the camera may loose track momentarily. Below, we see several moments where the system looses track of the same UAP.

flir-2.gif

The object is tracked, then suddenly moves in a circle as if it had no inertia, and the FLIR system needs to regain its track. We expect such motions due to interference between Earth’s gravity well and the distortion field overlaying it.

flir-3.gif

The object hovers and suddenly accelerates to the left, causing the system to loose track again.

flir-1.gif

Slowed down to 10% of the original video’s speed, we see the object perform a vertical, diagonal motion at sudden high velocity, starting from a stand still. The object is moving so fast that it jumps from frame to frame as the frame rate of the camera is insufficient to capture the motion smoothly. Notably, as the object accelerates, it becomes blurry while still being tracked and motionless at that moment, pointing to a distortion field being generated to create the geodesic along which the object then moves.


The FLIR Video

Conclusions and the Origin of UAPs
The character of a fundamental explanation is that it is simple and accounts for a wide variety of more complicated phenomena that all follow from it. Our hypothesis is such an explanation. It follows immediately from a fundamental law of motion that has no alternatives, as only geodesics are free of accelerations. It can be stated in one sentence and we obtain a long list of observables and behaviors from it.

Beyond the footage released, leaked, and discussed, there is a large number of accounts by Navy pilots and other military personnel across the world that are exactly in line with the predictions of a geodesic propulsion system. It is remarkable that we can say there appears to be no discrepancy known between this theory and any credible accounts and observations over the past century, as would be expected of a fundamental explanation.

The 2013 Puerto Rico footage demonstrates gravitational lensing in exactly the way we can expect. We observe mirages, invisibility, and unimpeded motion through water at high speeds. Furthermore, the FLIR footage shows the incredible accelerations and speeds. All of the known observables of UAPs can be explained by a single technology. Gravitational lensing is a new observable that has not been described before as far as we are aware, though unclear shapes and apparent shapeshifting are commonly known occurrences when observing UAPs.

If a foreign country had developed this technology in secret, it would have needed to develop a complete theory of quantum gravity several decades before the year 2000 since a completed craft existed during the 2004 “Tic Tac” incident. The equations of a fundamental theory alone are not enough to build technology from it, as these equations need to be applied to physical systems in order to design anything. Applying a theory is difficult, needs more decades of work, and requires modern computing power which did not exist decades ago. Many additional technologies and tools would need to be created to actually construct such a craft and all its materials.

We recognize that it is not simply an engineering hurdle but a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity that disables any country from developing such technology. It would be extraordinary to suggest such technology was developed by any country at a time when our computers still used floppy discs, and other modern tools and material science did not exist. As a whole, such a country would have been far ahead of the rest of the world. We thus have to conclude that the likelihood of these objects having an extraterrestrial origin is very near certain.

Given the large number of habitable exoplanets we are currently discovering, ranging to 6 billion such planets in the galaxy, this result is becoming entirely ordinary and expected. What’s more, the large amount of habitable planets and vast length of cosmic time ensures that complex extraterrestrial life has likely evolved multiple times and long ago given that any simultaneity with our civilization would be an extraordinary coincidence. This means that if they are here today, they have been for a long time and must have been noticed throughout history, which may explain the UAP accounts we have from classical antiquity.

Given the agreement of this theory with virtually all credible data over the last century, we consider the matter of the origin of these vehicles settled. What we really need to do going forward is to inform the public of this fact, as we are not going to have any communication with any off-world people as long as we are not even collectively aware of them. For all we know, collective awareness may just be what they are waiting for. Instead of discussing whether they exist, we ought to talk about how we may appeal to them that we are ready to be spoken to, which they seem to avoid with diligence.


About Our Remaining Predictions
We still have to talk about our remaining predictions, as we have so far only shown that gravitational lensing is occurring in the way we expect.

  1. The round and geometric designs of UAP are well established and now understandable.
  2. Sharp turns and maneuvers are among the common things we know about UAPs.
  3. Their high speeds (even 100,000 mph have been measured) are well known. They also routinely go into the ocean or emerge from it. Radar contact turns into sonar contact as the UAP enters the water. Unidentified Submerged Objects are a thing, as are Hyper Velocity Underwater Objects in Navy hand books.
  4. UAPs are known to move silently as we would expect from a device not in touch with the air.
  5. We discussed gravitational lensing in the videos above.
  6. We discussed invisibility in the video above.
  7. There are multiple credible eyewitness accounts of this from military personnel, often for black triangular UAPs, some of which appear to map the surface as they move back in forth over areas in patterns. They appear geometric and thus undistorted as expected.
  8. We are aware of an account by a Navy pilot who saw a “black cube surrounded by a sphere of glass”. Glassy environments are expected from the distortion field but mostly from the vacuum inside it, causing light to partially reflect and refract as it enters and exists the vacuum.
  9. The starlike glow around UAPs is well established. Slow moving UAPs, in particular those of different designs, appear to sometimes not glow but still exhibit heat around them (if one believes some witnesses that ended up with burns as they got to close to such a vehicle).
  10. The UAP in the Gimbal video exhibits this rotating behavior, which leads us to understand that it was about to jump to its top speed or other high speed. Conspicuously, the video cuts at this point, thus not showing the jump. If the object had continued to move mundanely, there would have been more footage and no reason to cut the video so suddenly after the rotation. But if the world saw the object suddenly disappear, everybody would know what it is and even the most biased person would have had no choice but to accept it. We must, therefore, point out that the nature of this craft is likely known to the camera operator and senior personnel that have access to the uncut video. See below:

The Gimbal Video
 
Is it really necessary to change the thread title?
Yes, I think so. The modern mainstream UAP story is a rapidly evolving one, beginning only in 2017 with the bombshell NY Times reporting. It is potentially of great significance to humanity, although of course receiving only understandably modest acceptance in our specialist forum. But since the forum does provide the tools, I have taken the opportunity to use them, hopefully in a respectful and responsible way, to improve the value and utility of this thread.
 
Yes, I think so. The modern mainstream UAP story is a rapidly evolving one, beginning only in 2017 with the bombshell NY Times reporting. It is potentially of great significance to humanity, although of course receiving only understandably modest acceptance in our specialist forum. But since the forum does provide the tools, I have taken the opportunity to use them, hopefully in a respectful and responsible way, to improve the value and utility of this thread.

...it doesn't. It just confuses what the thread is about, and whether it's the same as the old thread. The thread itself can "rapidly evolve". The thread title helps people find the discussion.
 
I ran across this fundamental explanation of the phenomena, it looked intriguing, so I thought I'd pass it along. It makes reference to quantum gravity, and comes to a conclusion I'm loathe to agree with. But, as always, I could be wrong.

https://www.uaptheory.com


A Fundamental Explanation of UAPs
The reason we made a website for this is due to its importance and to inform everyone. Share it!
We present a theory of how UAPs work that explains everything one can observe about them.
By understanding them, we can also explain their origin and nature. We aim to settle the matter once and for all.

The structure of this page follows the scientific method.
Data -> Hypothesis -> Predictions -> Observation


Contents [show]

Foreword
Aligning Your Expectations With the Current State of Research

Given the nature of the topic discussed here, we wish to make something very clear to you. The stigma surrounding the topic of UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) and their possible non-mundane explanation is outdated and should have started to go away with the discovery of habitable exoplanets. Our capability to find such planets is still new and it took until now to get good statistics. Barely anyone has had time to update their views and expectations accordingly, so let’s do that real quick.

We can now estimate there are 6 billion habitable Earth-like planets in our galaxy, and in 2020, 24 planets were identified to be more habitable than the Earth, which is 0.6% of all the planets currently known. Applied to the whole galaxy, this leads us to expect on the order of 1 billion such planets: 6 of them can be expected within 50 light years and are thus right around the corner. The galaxy is not only vast in size and time but also in worlds. Even sci-fi has underestimated this abundance.

Because of this new picture of the galaxy, our expectations of what is out there needs to change entirely. Since there are planets we expect to be more suitable for life than Earth, we also have to expect complex life to be out there, or it would be illogical. The likelihood of other civilizations even in our vicinity has increased so dramatically that such considerations can no longer be subject to ridicule without dismissing exoplanet research. Prior skepticism about UAPs was certainly warranted due to lack of credible data (and too much nonsense surrounding this topic). Moreover, even the Pentagon and US Navy have publicly acknowledged the reality of these objects and their maneuvers, not even being the first nation to do so. The time has come to take this topic very seriously.

On this website, we present a fundamental theory for the propulsion system of UAPs, which allows us to predict their motions, behaviors, and origin with surprising ease once we understand what these devices are actually doing. The data needed to come to a conclusion is already available and only required a theory to explain it.

Overview
  1. We present a theory and qualitative explanation for the physics of UAPs and discuss their likely origin.
  2. From the theory, we make a list of predictions that can be tested observationally. We want Navy personnel to be aware of these.
  3. We provide evidence of these observations within the data that is already available.
  4. For general readers, we have prepared additional pages with more detailed explanations of some of the physics involved.
Assumption
In April 2020, the US defense department and Navy released three declassified UAP videos, which are also surrounded by information given by some of the Navy personnel involved in the incidents. This imparts a credibility to the reality of UAPs that did not exist prior to this time, and we can now accept the nature of the objects as a scientific topic of investigation. We assume this additional information to be factual since the Pentagon intended to “clear up misconceptions” and the personnel was permitted to come forward with their accounts of the incident.

Understanding UAPs
Today, carrier strike groups track UAPs with multiple high-fidelity radar systems, infra-red systems, sonar systems (if they enter the water), and Navy personnel, all corroborating the information. A glitch within an individual system cannot occur across all platforms simultaneously in exactly the same way. From this, we know for sure how these objects move, their speed, and their accelerations. Modern radar systems provide 3D motion data across the entire battle space surrounding carrier strike groups. The videos so far officially released are only a small part of the information the Navy has available. Radar data on speed and maneuvers are far more useful than visually observed motions.

Yet there is only one piece of information we really need in order to figure out how UAPs work: their accelerations.


Visualization of the “Tic-Tac” engagement. Image Credit: Brian Bell
UAPs demonstrate linear accelerations within one second to speeds higher than ordinary aircraft. They are also able to maneuver around sharp angles.

Example: At one point during the 2004 “Tic Tac” incident, the UAP moved (on the radar) from 80,000 ft to various altitudes from 28,000 ft to 50 ft above sea level in 0.78 seconds. A motion in that time frame along, say, 60,000 ft distance yields accelerations above 12,000 g-forces and speeds above 100,000 mph if we assume half the distance was used to accelerate and the other half to decelerate.

Routinely, UAPs are measured and observed to suddenly move very quickly, starting at hundreds of g-forces to the extreme case as the one described above.

The Main Argument
The only thing we are going to put into the theory are the high accelerations of these material objects and require them to be compatible with the laws of motion. We do this by having the insight that these accelerations are too large and thus cannot actually be there. There is indeed one way the laws of physics will allow an object to move and even get faster without feeling any accelerations. This happens if you move along a geodesic of spacetime.

Geodesics, simply put, are straight lines on a curved surface and are thus different depending on the shape of the surface. You can think of the spacetime in which we exist as a surface which has curvature on it produced by masses (energy) placed in that spacetime. Curved spacetime also has geodesics, which are the paths we all take if we are freely falling. A baseball moves on a geodesic, and so do satellites, the moon, the space station. Geodesics are the natural path you take through spacetime if nothing pushes you elsewhere, and that is why astronauts are in zero gravity. For a more detailed explanation of geodesics, see this page.

Now you see why a UAP can have no accelerations on it as long as it moves on a geodesic. But there is a problem: Geodesics depend on the curvature of spacetime and are fixed. But the UAP can navigate however it wants. This can only work if the UAPs has an exotic propulsion system that is able to create its own geodesics by curving the spacetime near it into the shape required. This would enable the UAP to freely fall along any intended trajectory. By doing so, no matter how it moves, the UAP itself would experience no accelerations at all.

Consider the elegance of what we just did. We only looked at the high accelerations of these objects and required them to be consistent with the laws of physics instead of defying them. By making these motions consistent with physics, an exotic gravitational propulsion system is forced on us. We didn’t put this in, we were lead to it as a consequence. Without such a propulsion system, the laws of physics get broken by these objects. If you find such technology implausible at the moment, consider that breaking the laws of physics would be far more implausible than that.

Let us run with this insight and find out what the consequences of such a propulsion system would be. That is, if it exists, what does it imply and can we test whether it’s true?

Our Hypothesis
As derived above, UAPs create distortions in spacetime to create geodesics along which they move free of accelerations.

Plausibility
Attention, this section is not trivial but also not necessary to move forward, so you can skip it if its too much. Its purpose is to give you a sense and appreciation of how an engine that distorts spacetime is likely going to work, even without knowing how to build one.

General relativity itself does not seem to allow a gravity propulsion system because that requires either too much energy or exotic forms of energy. But general relativity is not a quantum theory and thus not complete.

See, every time a deeper theory of the universe is formulated, it doesn’t render the old theories wrong but adds to them.

Classical Newtonian mechanics is what everybody learns in school. Quantum mechanics and special relativity are two deeper theories than that. But if you put low everyday velocities into special relativity, then relativity turns back into classical mechanics. And if you describe large everyday objects with quantum mechanics, then quantum mechanics also turns back into classical physics. General relativity also turns back into Newtonian gravity in the limit of weak gravitational fields. This means that Newtonian physics overall is actually the limit of large & slow objects of these deeper theories.

But these deeper theories contain a lot more details. Quantum effects, for instance, that are added to our understanding of the world, new effects that we can exploit to create technology like computers. Modern technology is an exploitation of quantum effects that Newtonian physics does not contain.

There is a level still left beyond our deepest theories: quantum gravity, a description of spacetime and its curvature (gravitation) in the form of a quantum theory. Like before, this deeper theory will reproduce general relativity but with some corrections and additions to it: quantum effects in spacetime itself. If we had this theory finished already, we would be able to exploit those new effects and manipulate spacetime and its curvature quantum mechanically.

It may surprise you but we are actually not entirely clueless about quantum gravity anymore. Despite the fact that a complete theory does not yet exist, we can see where the journey is headed.

entanglement-space.jpg

Space itself is the entanglement of quantum bits that exist on the universe’s horizon (the surface of the bubble, so to speak).
In recent years, beginning with the work of Maldacena (in this paper), we are starting to see how space works at the quantum level. Since 2009, we understand that space turns out to be a network of quantum bits that are all entangled with each other (here’s a section of a program where this is explained).

These quantum bits correspond to the points of the space they describe, and the connection of all the points in space with each other is actually the entanglement between the quantum bits. So space and entangled quantum information is the same thing. The amount of entanglement of two bits determines how close their corresponding spatial points are. More entanglement = close. Less entanglement = far away. We thus understand what space is, what distances in that space are, and finally what motion really is. Motions are changes in the amount of entanglement of a quantum bit with all the others.

Gravitation (the curvature of spacetime) then appears to be nothing else but a property of said quantum entanglement network that has to do with its entropy. Such formulations are beginning to be attempted, and already show great promise. For example, it turns out that the famous dark matter may not even exist, as the additional gravity we see out there appears to be a quantum correction to general relativity. A lot more work needs to be done on this approach but we have been seeing for quite some time that gravity is going to have some type of an entropy explanation.

If we had a complete theory of quantum gravity (a complete description of the entanglement network) then we should be able to create technology to manipulate that network just as we can build quantum computers by knowing quantum mechanics, which is a technology that sounds just as much like science fiction as a gravity propulsion system. But we actually have quantum computers.

Instead of thinking about this from the old classical perspective, you can now think of it from a quantum perspective. Instead of wastefully putting huge energies in particular places to warp the spacetime, we could instead very precisely and with much less energy manipulate the entanglement network, which is equivalent to changing the geometry of the spacetime.

This means the hypothetical propulsion system of UAPs is applied quantum gravity in the same way that a quantum computer is applied quantum mechanics. We do know geometries in general relativity that move at high speeds (including faster than light) so even interstellar travel would be enabled by this technology.


Predictions
According to our insight, UAPs are not flying. They are falling.

Requiring that UAPs are consistent with the laws of motion lead us to a gravity drive, for lack of a better term, which has the following implications:

  1. UAPs should be round or geometrical as there is no preferred forward-facing direction. Since they use spacetime as their control surface, they need no wings or afterburners. (Pause for a second and note that we just obtained the known designs of UAPs only from our demand that UAPs don’t break the laws of physics. Their shape just pops out of it as a consequence without putting it in first.)
  2. UAPs can maneuver in sharp angles at high speeds because they move on geodesics and are in zero G.
  3. Particles are moving along the curved geometry of the space surrounding them, avoiding the craft. Thus, UAPs have an envelope of vacuum around them and can move without friction both in air and water, which they can enter and exit without impedance. They can move faster than would be possible for any craft that is in contact with the air or water.
  4. UAPs move very quietly or silently, unlike jets. They may not create a sonic boom when going super sonic.
  5. We should see gravitational lensing around UAPs when they maneuver as they must change the geometry of their distortion field to change their trajectory. If this optical effect is large enough, we should see the UAP change its shape as it accelerates or turns. We may also see the background of the UAP distorted in its vicinity.
Point 5 is the most important one. As light enters and exists the distortion field, the light paths follow the curvature of the spacetime and exit at different angles. Let us say this clearly:

You don’t see a UAP directly since you are always seeing it through the distortion field – like an object in a distorted glass container.

If the UAP wants to maneuver or change its speed, it must change the local distortion of the spacetime to create a different geodesic, so it falls into a different direction. We should then see the object change its shape because the light paths change with the geometry of the field.

This is a critically important point and we have never seen anyone mention it before. UAPs should generally change their apparent shape as they maneuver. We are going to dissect this further below. Note that we can only expect this while they maneuver or accelerate because once this is done they may continue moving at a constant speed. Motion at a constant speed doesn’t require a distortion field. This means we can still see a UAP mostly undistorted but have to look for changes in its shape when it maneuvers.

  1. UAPs can be made invisible from below by choosing the distortion field in such a way that light going down from the craft is lensed back up or to the sides. From those upwards positions, we should hence be able to see one or more mirages of the UAP if such a cloak is active.
  2. UAPs can’t be cloaked and should appear undistored if they intend to emit a beam, either to scan the environment, map the ground, or attack. Otherwise, any beam would be lensed in some other direction rather than go where it is meant to go.
  3. UAPs may appear like they are surrounded by glass since it has an envelope of vacuum around it. Light moves from air into that vacuum and then back into the air as it exits. When light moves from air to vacuum, it gets refracted partially reflected, just like entering glass or other media. At high altitudes, direct sunlight may be lensed, reflected, and refracted to produce gleaming spots or rings around the UAP. A pilot can then have the false impression the UAP is surrounded by glass.
  4. The energy output of UAPs should be significant, causing the air to heat up and emit visible light (like a light bulb). We can expect this but it’s clear this will depend on the design and speed of the craft. If a UAP is cloaked, it may run on low energy and speed to avoid detection. So we cannot rule out that it is possible to avoid the thermal radiation depending on circumstances or craft designs.
  5. Some UAPs should display conspicuous rotations before disappearing. Since the maximum speed of any craft needs its engine to run at maximum capacity, we expect a UAP to use all of its spacetime manipulating capability to accelerate to its top speed. But the engine is normally used to hold the object up against Earth’s gravity and to make maneuvers, which we can expect to require a particular orientation of the craft depending on its design (likely pointing the engine down or up). To switch from normal maneuvers to its top speed would then require the object to rotate towards the travel point in order to focus the engine in that direction, creating something akin to an Alcubierre metric, which is a geometry where spacetime is contracted in front of the craft and expanded behind it. At least with some UAP designs, in particular flat designs, we expect a rotation of the craft before a jump to top speeds. Spherical or cube shaped UAPs may not need this since the field generators can be placed all around the shape of the craft.
Before we get into any observations, note that most of these points are commonly known about UAPs. So by requiring that the laws of motion are not broken by these vehicles, we are ultimately lead to this list of consequences that fits every observable known about UAPs – and then some! All of these commonly observed phenomena are actually manifestations of a single technology. UAPs have never defied physics, they only seem to.

Observations & Verification
All of the predictions above follow from the design of the engine alone. The points we need to discuss the most are 5. and 6. as gravitational lensing is the best observable to demonstrate the nature of the propulsion system.

It is already known that when you look at a UAP, it is notoriously difficult to understand what shape it may be. We are going to understand this fully once we look at the best video evidence that is publicly available. Before we can get into it, we need to talk a little bit about gravitational lensing.

The hubble space telescope sees gravitational lensing all over the place. Galaxies create huge distortions in spacetime due to their presence and as light propagates through that field, light paths are bent before arriving at our camera. This produces two main types of distortions in the image of galaxies and stars.

Einstein Ring
black-hole-lens.gif


Simulation of a black hole moving in front of a galaxy. The light is lensed around it in the form of a ring. Rings, or pieces of rings, are very commonly observed.

Einstein Cross
einstein-cross-300x290.jpg


Another common occurrence are duplicates of the same object. The four lights on either side all show the same quasar who’s light gets lensed around a galaxy in the middle and comes to the camera from multiple sides.

Now, let’s look at some examples

An illustration of how an Einstein cross comes about. Different light paths get lensed by the galaxy in the way between the telescope and the light source.

A collection of Einstein crosses, all of which are duplicates of the same objects.

Lots of Einstein rings, or sections of rings, as galaxies are lensed into ring shapes.

Dissecting UAP Footage
2013 Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
We are going to analyze what is likely the best footage of a UAP available. It is uncut and shows over 3 minutes of footage of a UAP moving low over the surrounding area of Rafael Hernandez airport and dives into the ocean, where a second UAP of the same shape appears to be present.

Because of its low altitude, we can see the background behind the object and can look for the following effects: gravitational lensing of the background around the UAP, apparent shape-shifting of the UAP whenever it maneuvers due to changes in the distortion field, unimpeded motion through water, and partial invisibility. Note that the white rim around the object is an effect of the thermal camera and common with such systems. It does not mean there is low temperature around the craft and it is not the lensing we are talking about.

This is a Homeland Security leaked thermal video from April 25th, 2013, 9:20 pm local time filmed by a DHC-8 Turboprop aircraft controlled by the US Customs and Border Protection. The video was obtained from an official source on October 20th, 2013, whose identity (for reasons of persecution) remained confidential. All frames of the video have been analyzed, dissected, and vetted to be real.

Below, you find the original footage and an AI upscale we have done at 1080P. Mind you, only use the original footage as evidence and the upscale for easier viewing if you wish. We have spent dozens of hours to analyze this footage frame by frame, as that and a keen eye is required to really highlight the effects.

Original low res footage

AI Upscale 1080P footage

1. Duplication
Remember that in order to navigate, the craft needs to change the geometry of the distortion field, thus changing the gravitational lense. This causes light from the object to be lensed towards or away from the camera in different ways, changing the apparent shape of the object.

During the video, you can see several moments where a mirage of the object appears right above it. Upon slow-motion inspection, we find the mirage appears out of thin air, being transparent at first and then becoming stronger, sometimes replacing the original shape of the craft entirely.

Here are several instances looped for you in order of their appearance.

ai-duplicate-0.gif


ai-duplicate-1.gif


ai-duplicate-2.gif


Our theory not only explains this but also makes it predictable. When the craft accelerates towards the camera, either by turning or decelerating when facing in the opposite direction, the distortion field changes and lenses light in this direction. It does this because to accelerate towards the camera, it has to create a gravitational downhill in that direction, and this is where the light gets lensed to. The object is making a sharp turn, which coincides with such a mirage.

As we are going to see further down, the object can also appear to shrink and disappear, which coincides with opposite accelerations. If we had cameras on opposite sides of the craft, we would see a mirage in one camera and invisibility in the other because the light from the invisible side is the light we see on the side featuring a mirage. So the light we are missing on one side is the extra light we get on the other.

ai-duplicate-3.gif
As the object changes its flight path, the distortion field shifts and we see into a direction where another view of the object gets lensed into the camera direction. We see the mirage appear above the original apparent shape. It is clearly above the object, not part of it.

ai-duplicate-4.gif
We are seeing two versions of the same object from two angles. The mirage at the top swallows and replaces the original apparent shape on the bottom. The object decelerates and turns due east when this happens, changing the distortion field as expected.

ai-duplicate-5.gif
Another instance where the original gets swapped out by a mirage as the object navigates differently. The object decelerates in this moment as well.

2. Invisibility
At many instances during the video, we see the craft shrinking to a smaller size, often the size of a small dot, and sometimes disappearing altogether for one or two frames. The craft then suddenly reappears, which seems to coincide with it leveling out again.

The shrinking seems to occur when the craft moves the opposite way of when it duplicates. From this we can understand what is happening here. When we see the object get smaller or disappear, an observer on the opposite side would see a mirage as that is where the missing light is going. For all instances where we see a mirage, an observer on the opposite side would see the craft get smaller or disappear. This is exactly what we would expect from a craft with a propulsion system that distorts spacetime as described.

ai-smaller-1.gif


Object gets smaller, then larger again.

ai-smaller-2.gif


Object gets smaller, then larger as it changes its direction and a mirage appears.

ai-small-to-large.gif

Object is small and gets larger as it changes its direction and a mirage appears.

ai-cloak-1.gif


Object disappears and reappears as it navigates. On the opposite side, we would see a mirage that swallows the craft, as we have seen in an example further up. You can even see how it is a mirror image of that process.

ai-cloak-2.gif


Same as before but not as strong.

ai-cloak-4.gif


The object accelerates strongly (over 200G) to 4-5 times its original speed and becomes barely visible as it moves towards the sea. Nothing is occluding the view. We are aware of eyewitness testimony taken on location, saying the object looked like a forward facing horseshoe and turned into a sphere as it raced to the sea.

3. Background Lensing
Since the UAP is seen from above, we can observe how light from background objects moves past it and get lensed. The entire video features such lensing effects but they require a keen eye and patience to spot as you go from frame to frame. When looking at the object moving, the glassy looking lens around it is noticeable best while it moves. Screenshots or slowed down loops don’t do it justice.

Note: again, in this thermal view, black his hot and white is cold. The object appears as hot as truck engines driving on the street. Thermal camera systems like this generally sharpen the image, causing whiteness surrounding objects. This white rim is not the distortion field we are talking about, though it does seem to be influenced by it, as the field changes the apparent dimensions and light around the object.

Here is a collection of noteworthy moments.

environment-lensing-1.gif


Lines on the field get bent as the UAP moves above them in our line of sight. This is easily visible in the upscale as the AI makes the lines stronger but the same can be observed in the original low res footage. Circular bent lines and shapes are seen throughout the video.

environment-lensing-2.gif


As the object leaves the field, its dark edge appears to stick to the object. This is because light that would normally move past the object gets lensed around it and goes towards to camera.

environment-lensing-3.gif


The edge of the water of this pond gets seemingly squeezed as the object moves across it.

lensing-over-edge-low-res.gif

(Low res footage) – As the object passes the runway, one frame perfectly catches it just above the line between light and dark areas. This line gets lensed around the object above and below and makes curved shapes. Also, the dark background lenses around the object and exits darker (hotter), making a darker ring.

lensing-over-edge-ai.gif

(Upscaled footage) – Here we see the same scene in the upscaled footage.

lensing-over-edge.jpg

A sketch of what we are focusing on in this clip. We have no way of knowing what the distortion field really looks like, though it is certainly more complicated than a simple spherical field. However, we can see a clear lensing effect as though the light was simply moving around the object from this angle.

shape-shifting.gif


Observe the dark ring around the object. Lensing around the object is confined to a particular radius, which shows us the size of the distortion field. The dark ring is light coming from the object itself that gets lensed back to the camera.

4. Diving and Second Object
Near the end of the video, we see the object dive into the Atlantic and meet a second craft of the same apparent shape. The camera operator zooms in and we can see a clearer view of the object, appearing as multiple patches that are connected to each other. What’s more, the object retains its heat and moves at around 100 mph, only 20 mph less than its average speed in the air, demonstrating that the water does not impede its motions, something that would be impossible for any craft that is in contact with the surrounding air or fluid.

We note that in certain areas of the world, many locals, especially fishermen, have reported seeing such objects move in and out of the sea. Given that we now have video evidence of such an event, we see that accounts from the public cannot simply be dismissed.

dive-einstein-cross.gif

The object enters the water without impedance. Some of parts of it appear dark, as there are likely certain places on the object that are hot while the glassy shape surrounding them is the distortion field. As it enters, water has to move around the object, following the distortion field and occluding the view partially.

dive-sea-einstein-cross.gif

Moving right along the surface of the water, the bottom dark spot appearing like a reflection. All of the spots remain within a noticeable radius that seems to be surrounded by a transparent sphere.

dive-moving-in-water.gif

The object enters the water quickly and without slowing down. Water is moving around the object, though it is difficult to spot due to its low temperature.

dive-motion-water.gif

The object is moving fast under the surface of the water at around 100 mph.

dive-motion-water-2.gif

The object emerges from the water without impedance and looks as though it is splitting in two.

dive-2nd-craft.gif

We see a second object of the same type and lensing pattern that is accompanying the first one. The two objects are moving together like wingmen. At first glance it looks as if the craft was really a unit of two craft locked together, which then separated in the water. This is unlikely because we already see two dark patches on the original craft when it enters the water and it also has the same size as each of the two objects. If it was two craft, it’s not mystifying because they can still appear the same size when split. What we are seeing is not the craft directly but the distortion field around them, which we can expect to be about the same size as before. A third and rather mundane possibility is that it’s a reflection, as we can see striking dark reflections of trees in a pond earlier in the video. The sea, however, is not as still as a pond and likely wouldn’t allow such clear reflections.

What’s more, in the 15 seconds before this clip, the craft’s speed went below 50 mph, thus dropping to around half the speed it had when it was moving under water at first. This is not surprising given that two wingmen are meeting up (or two craft exiting from a locked configuration), further showing they are under intelligent control.

But wait, does it really enter the water? It is difficult to see, so let’s slow it down and add a lot of contrast so we can see the splashing of the water as it moves around the distortion field. In fact, when it comes back out of the water, the water is clearly running and splashing around the object just as we’d expect it to look like.

uap-dive-contrast.gif


Skepticism & Reality
We used to be skeptics about UAPs before the Pentagon release, so we know this type of person very well. Skeptics see UAPs on the same level as believing in ghosts, so the possibility is not even an option to them and they will always come up with a mundane alternative. Even the official Pentagon videos get explained away as birds, flares, or airliners despite the Navy having exact radar tracking data of their motions, high-res videos of these objects, and had experts with decades of experience look at it, yet they were unable to identify these objects. But a skeptic with only a cut low-res video is somehow able to figure out its mundane nature and then decides it is true. Do you see how ludicrous and arrogant this is? We know, we used to be this way, and it is how all evidence on UAPs that finds its way to the public always gets destroyed.

For the video above, they claim it was a balloon or lantern which was mostly stationary. What they didn’t know is that we had the actual maintenance crew of this very camera and this very aircraft reach out to us, saying the object was not a balloon as it would never look like this in the camera. The UAP showed up on the airport’s radar without a transponder code (a ghost plane, essentially) and thus the airport was shut down for incoming and outgoing flights for a short time. Eyewitness accounts were taken on the ground, saying the object raced towards the sea and morphed its shape from a forward facing horseshoe to a sphere, corroborating what we see in the footage. Skeptics ignore all this extra information and keep claiming it’s a balloon.

Beyond this video, people that have researched UAPs for 30+ years have reached out to us. They told us that every credible account or footage they have ever seen or heard of exactly fits the observables predicted by this theory because these observables are very common with UAPs and always the same.

Militaries around the world are starting to order all their pilots to report UAP encounters (e.g. Japan did it in fall 2020) because the sensors that are now in use on ships have such a high fidelity that UAPs simply show up on the screen, performing speeds sometimes in excess of 100,000 mph. All of these militaries are taking this seriously as we are no longer talking about a strange light in the distance but actual 3D-radar tracking. Radar operators plainly see these objects and that is why we are starting to hear ever more accounts and details.

FLIR Footage
One of the videos officially acknowledged to be real by the defense department is called FLIR, filmed by a system designed to automatically track fast moving objects, in particular missiles. Operators of such equipment state that in thousands of hours of using it, the system never looses track of objects. If it is mounted on a vehicle which hits a large enough rock, causing a sudden move of the vehicle and its camera, the camera may loose track momentarily. Below, we see several moments where the system looses track of the same UAP.

flir-2.gif

The object is tracked, then suddenly moves in a circle as if it had no inertia, and the FLIR system needs to regain its track. We expect such motions due to interference between Earth’s gravity well and the distortion field overlaying it.

flir-3.gif

The object hovers and suddenly accelerates to the left, causing the system to loose track again.

flir-1.gif

Slowed down to 10% of the original video’s speed, we see the object perform a vertical, diagonal motion at sudden high velocity, starting from a stand still. The object is moving so fast that it jumps from frame to frame as the frame rate of the camera is insufficient to capture the motion smoothly. Notably, as the object accelerates, it becomes blurry while still being tracked and motionless at that moment, pointing to a distortion field being generated to create the geodesic along which the object then moves.


The FLIR Video

Conclusions and the Origin of UAPs
The character of a fundamental explanation is that it is simple and accounts for a wide variety of more complicated phenomena that all follow from it. Our hypothesis is such an explanation. It follows immediately from a fundamental law of motion that has no alternatives, as only geodesics are free of accelerations. It can be stated in one sentence and we obtain a long list of observables and behaviors from it.

Beyond the footage released, leaked, and discussed, there is a large number of accounts by Navy pilots and other military personnel across the world that are exactly in line with the predictions of a geodesic propulsion system. It is remarkable that we can say there appears to be no discrepancy known between this theory and any credible accounts and observations over the past century, as would be expected of a fundamental explanation.

The 2013 Puerto Rico footage demonstrates gravitational lensing in exactly the way we can expect. We observe mirages, invisibility, and unimpeded motion through water at high speeds. Furthermore, the FLIR footage shows the incredible accelerations and speeds. All of the known observables of UAPs can be explained by a single technology. Gravitational lensing is a new observable that has not been described before as far as we are aware, though unclear shapes and apparent shapeshifting are commonly known occurrences when observing UAPs.

If a foreign country had developed this technology in secret, it would have needed to develop a complete theory of quantum gravity several decades before the year 2000 since a completed craft existed during the 2004 “Tic Tac” incident. The equations of a fundamental theory alone are not enough to build technology from it, as these equations need to be applied to physical systems in order to design anything. Applying a theory is difficult, needs more decades of work, and requires modern computing power which did not exist decades ago. Many additional technologies and tools would need to be created to actually construct such a craft and all its materials.

We recognize that it is not simply an engineering hurdle but a lack of a complete theory of quantum gravity that disables any country from developing such technology. It would be extraordinary to suggest such technology was developed by any country at a time when our computers still used floppy discs, and other modern tools and material science did not exist. As a whole, such a country would have been far ahead of the rest of the world. We thus have to conclude that the likelihood of these objects having an extraterrestrial origin is very near certain.

Given the large number of habitable exoplanets we are currently discovering, ranging to 6 billion such planets in the galaxy, this result is becoming entirely ordinary and expected. What’s more, the large amount of habitable planets and vast length of cosmic time ensures that complex extraterrestrial life has likely evolved multiple times and long ago given that any simultaneity with our civilization would be an extraordinary coincidence. This means that if they are here today, they have been for a long time and must have been noticed throughout history, which may explain the UAP accounts we have from classical antiquity.

Given the agreement of this theory with virtually all credible data over the last century, we consider the matter of the origin of these vehicles settled. What we really need to do going forward is to inform the public of this fact, as we are not going to have any communication with any off-world people as long as we are not even collectively aware of them. For all we know, collective awareness may just be what they are waiting for. Instead of discussing whether they exist, we ought to talk about how we may appeal to them that we are ready to be spoken to, which they seem to avoid with diligence.


About Our Remaining Predictions
We still have to talk about our remaining predictions, as we have so far only shown that gravitational lensing is occurring in the way we expect.

  1. The round and geometric designs of UAP are well established and now understandable.
  2. Sharp turns and maneuvers are among the common things we know about UAPs.
  3. Their high speeds (even 100,000 mph have been measured) are well known. They also routinely go into the ocean or emerge from it. Radar contact turns into sonar contact as the UAP enters the water. Unidentified Submerged Objects are a thing, as are Hyper Velocity Underwater Objects in Navy hand books.
  4. UAPs are known to move silently as we would expect from a device not in touch with the air.
  5. We discussed gravitational lensing in the videos above.
  6. We discussed invisibility in the video above.
  7. There are multiple credible eyewitness accounts of this from military personnel, often for black triangular UAPs, some of which appear to map the surface as they move back in forth over areas in patterns. They appear geometric and thus undistorted as expected.
  8. We are aware of an account by a Navy pilot who saw a “black cube surrounded by a sphere of glass”. Glassy environments are expected from the distortion field but mostly from the vacuum inside it, causing light to partially reflect and refract as it enters and exists the vacuum.
  9. The starlike glow around UAPs is well established. Slow moving UAPs, in particular those of different designs, appear to sometimes not glow but still exhibit heat around them (if one believes some witnesses that ended up with burns as they got to close to such a vehicle).
  10. The UAP in the Gimbal video exhibits this rotating behavior, which leads us to understand that it was about to jump to its top speed or other high speed. Conspicuously, the video cuts at this point, thus not showing the jump. If the object had continued to move mundanely, there would have been more footage and no reason to cut the video so suddenly after the rotation. But if the world saw the object suddenly disappear, everybody would know what it is and even the most biased person would have had no choice but to accept it. We must, therefore, point out that the nature of this craft is likely known to the camera operator and senior personnel that have access to the uncut video. See below:

The Gimbal Video

Slight aside, but the question of whether there are visitors from other civilisations visiting us is a question that has been asked for centuries, but this kind of propulsion system (if it is in fact possible/real) might offer some kind of explanation for the lack of obvious, witnessed incidences for two reasons. Firstly, objects could be mostly invisible to the human eye or recording equipment... but I think that is a relatively minor point...

The other point is perhaps more profound (but also slightly depressing, depending on your viewpoint). If it is that easy to travel vast distances, then even if there were a large number of civilisations capable of such technology, there's a practically infinite supply of places to visit/explore, so why would the Earth or even human civilisation be of any special interest?

We are indeed quite guilty of having a very Earth-centric view of the universe, but modern science has made it pretty clear over the last few decades that our solar system is far from special. Even our civilization may end up being just one of countless examples that has existed.

Our assumptions about space travel are also quite Earth-centric i.e. that we think about the possibilities of space travel according to our understanding of physics and our level of technological advancement. If we want to visit another celestial body, even on our own cosmic doorstep, it requires vast amounts of money, years of planning and effort, and it takes years for an object to travel under conventional forms of propulsion even to get to the edge of our own star system - with zero hope of ever exploring another star system with that technology.

But with the kind of technology being mooted here, we would have the exact opposite problem - the ability to visit an infinite number of places would create new questions - what is worth looking at? And that question can be flipped on it's head when applied to why others may visit Earth... is there anything so special about humanity or Earth that is worth the bother of study when there is likely to be many more useful or interesting subjects to study?

The argument that there are no visitors to Earth because space travel is prohibitively hard might imply that there ought to be loads of visitors if/when intergalactic travel becomes really simple... but it could be that simple intergalactic travel itself inherently renders the planet Earth obsolete as a point of cosmic interest. So, far from making it more likely that other civilisations would arrive for a look around, it might make it far less likely to happen.
 
Slight aside, but the question of whether there are visitors from other civilisations visiting us is a question that has been asked for centuries, but this kind of propulsion system (if it is in fact possible/real) might offer some kind of explanation for the lack of obvious, witnessed incidences for two reasons. Firstly, objects could be mostly invisible to the human eye or recording equipment... but I think that is a relatively minor point...

The other point is perhaps more profound (but also slightly depressing, depending on your viewpoint). If it is that easy to travel vast distances, then even if there were a large number of civilisations capable of such technology, there's a practically infinite supply of places to visit/explore, so why would the Earth or even human civilisation be of any special interest?

We are indeed quite guilty of having a very Earth-centric view of the universe, but modern science has made it pretty clear over the last few decades that our solar system is far from special. Even our civilization may end up being just one of countless examples that has existed.

Our assumptions about space travel are also quite Earth-centric i.e. that we think about the possibilities of space travel according to our understanding of physics and our level of technological advancement. If we want to visit another celestial body, even on our own cosmic doorstep, it requires vast amounts of money, years of planning and effort, and it takes years for an object to travel under conventional forms of propulsion even to get to the edge of our own star system - with zero hope of ever exploring another star system with that technology.

But with the kind of technology being mooted here, we would have the exact opposite problem - the ability to visit an infinite number of places would create new questions - what is worth looking at? And that question can be flipped on it's head when applied to why others may visit Earth... is there anything so special about humanity or Earth that is worth the bother of study when there is likely to be many more useful or interesting subjects to study?

The argument that there are no visitors to Earth because space travel is prohibitively hard might imply that there ought to be loads of visitors if/when intergalactic travel becomes really simple... but it could be that simple intergalactic travel itself inherently renders the planet Earth obsolete as a point of cosmic interest. So, far from making it more likely that other civilisations would arrive for a look around, it might make it far less likely to happen.

This is pretty much the conclusion I came to after playing Elite Dangerous, a sci-fi game that simulates the Milky Way galaxy. Although planets with extraterrestrial life on them are extremely rare in terms of percentages, when you have a spacecraft that is capable of hopping from one star system to another in seconds, you will start to see them quite often. The first few systems with life in them that you encounter are exciting finds. Later, you end up discovering hundreds of such systems, and the excitement vanishes.

A "prime directive," if you will, is probably not necessary for a civilization capable of such traveling speeds. Earth would have to be far outside the "norm" for this kind of civilization to take an interest in it, let alone actually attempt to communicate with us.

Then again, this is assuming that the visitors are biological in origin and even have concepts like "normal" - they could be artificial intelligence/machines for all we know. Collecting information for the sake of collecting information could be a thing, because they were programmed that way.

We send out many probes in our exploration of space, would some other space-faring civilizations not do the same? Why must these advanced spacecraft - if they are spacecraft - have a life form onboard?
 
This is pretty much the conclusion I came to after playing Elite Dangerous, a sci-fi game that simulates the Milky Way galaxy. Although planets with extraterrestrial life on them are extremely rare in terms of percentages, when you have a spacecraft that is capable of hopping from one star system to another in seconds, you will start to see them quite often. The first few systems with life in them that you encounter are exciting finds. Later, you end up discovering hundreds of such systems, and the excitement vanishes.

Agreed, you have to start ratting to get the fun back (imo).
 
...If it is that easy to travel vast distances, then even if there were a large number of civilisations capable of such technology, there's a practically infinite supply of places to visit/explore, so why would the Earth or even human civilisation be of any special interest?

We are indeed quite guilty of having a very Earth-centric view of the universe, but modern science has made it pretty clear over the last few decades that our solar system is far from special. Even our civilization may end up being just one of countless examples that has existed.

Our assumptions about space travel are also quite Earth-centric i.e. that we think about the possibilities of space travel according to our understanding of physics and our level of technological advancement. If we want to visit another celestial body, even on our own cosmic doorstep, it requires vast amounts of money, years of planning and effort, and it takes years for an object to travel under conventional forms of propulsion even to get to the edge of our own star system - with zero hope of ever exploring another star system with that technology.

But with the kind of technology being mooted here, we would have the exact opposite problem - the ability to visit an infinite number of places would create new questions - what is worth looking at? And that question can be flipped on it's head when applied to why others may visit Earth... is there anything so special about humanity or Earth that is worth the bother of study when there is likely to be many more useful or interesting subjects to study?

The argument that there are no visitors to Earth because space travel is prohibitively hard might imply that there ought to be loads of visitors if/when intergalactic travel becomes really simple... but it could be that simple intergalactic travel itself inherently renders the planet Earth obsolete as a point of cosmic interest. So, far from making it more likely that other civilisations would arrive for a look around, it might make it far less likely to happen.
Thanks for your reply, interesting remarks and questions. They are well appreciated. 👍

In the context of a thread explicitly about resolving unknown phenomena and distinct from the "Aliens" thread, the questions may be somewhat off topic, but are still very interesting. A have a few thoughts about it, any or all of which could be wrong.

The intelligence behind the phenomena may not be extraterrestrial. Could be ultraterrestrial, interdimensional, or involve time travel from our own future. Some psychiatrically oriented scientists and doctors such as Carl Jung have suggested the phenomena are in part emergent from the human unconscious. In prominent cases documented since 2014, the involvement of human consciousness as observer and party to the phenomena might be significant.

Questioning motivations is a very tough question to ask in many contexts, let alone this one. Perhaps we are related to the phenomena not just by a psychic bond but by DNA? We could be them and they could be us from the past or future? Or perhaps we pose a danger to the phenomena? Nuclear aircraft carrier fleets, submarines, ICBM bases and other nuclear facilities figure prominently in UFO cases going back to the 1940's.

In all known cases, the phenomena remains elusive of contact and communication with us, except on its own terms. How hard should we be trying to communicate with this phenomena? Openly acknowledged existence of the phenomena by elements of the USG is a very new thing, comprehensive investigation/study seems doubtful, and may be difficult to fund. So your questions may be eternal.
 
In the context of a thread explicitly about resolving unknown phenomena and distinct from the "Aliens" thread, the questions may be somewhat off topic, but are still very interesting. A have a few thoughts about it, any or all of which could be wrong.

That's where I'm confused, I thought this was the Aliens thread after several renamings?

The intelligence behind the phenomena may not be extraterrestrial. Could be ultraterrestrial, interdimensional, or involve time travel from our own future

If there's even any intelligence... but isn't this still really Aliens?
 
That's where I'm confused, I thought this was the Aliens thread after several renamings?

Nope. This has always been the UAP thread from its beginning. It has always had UAP in the thread title, and never aliens. This thread tries to avoid mentioning aliens, since they are not known to be real and are not generally discussed in any of the source reportage or documentation I put into this thread. If some source I post mentions aliens, I will usually note that my opinion differs. The Aliens thread is still active and discussion of aliens is better off there, IMHO.
If there's even any intelligence... but isn't this still really Aliens?

I suppose you can refer to aliens differently, such as illegal aliens, extraterrestrial aliens, or aliens from a hidden realm on Earth, or of time, or of dimension, even if it occupies the same space as us now. You in particular may refer to fairies as aliens.

Bottom line, aliens potentially means many very different things, things which are speculative and free ranging.

The intent of the OP was that this thread should be a place to rationally and scientifically/technically discuss UAPs, including those submerged, aka USOs. I guess we now call them transmedium UAP.

The import of all the reporting and articles published in this thread tends to indicate there is an intelligence of some kind operating the UAP phenomena. Here, we need to be sure it's not secret human projects, or somehow of Earthly origin before we descend to the "It's Aliens!" psychodrama.

I reaffirm my belief that extraterrestrial aliens have little or nothing to do with the UAP/USO phenomena. I believe it is far more complex than that.

Thanks for your efforts to clarify the purpose and meaning of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Is it really necessary to change the thread title?

How else can you keep people confused and off balance, and simultaneously make the topic of the thread so vague and nebulous that only you actually know what's going on?

Nope. This has always been the UAP thread from its beginning.

See, but no one except you and moderators could possibly know that. When the Aliens thread drops off the front page, this topic has an awful lot of overlap and it's completely understandable that people would make that assumption.

The intent of the OP was that this thread should be a place to rationally and scientifically/technically discuss UAPs, including those submerged, aka USOs. I guess we now call them transmedium UAP.

Rationally and scientifically? Really? What's the rational and scientific definition of an ultraterrestrial?
 
What's the rational and scientific definition of an ultraterrestrial?

It's the antithesis to extraterrestrial.

The term comes about as a result of the IDH, or interdimensional hypothesis, to explain UAP phenomena without necessary recourse to extraterrestrials. Astronomers J Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallée are credited with advancing the hypothesis subsequent to their work in Project Bluebook, the USAF's official investigation in the phenomena at the time.

The term ultraterrestrial itself was first used by John Keel in his 1975 book The Mothman Prophecies, meaning beings native to Earth who “inhabited parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that were imperceptible to the human eye” (p. 239)

The interdimensional hypothesis (IDH or IH), is an idea advanced by Ufologists such as Jacques Vallée that says unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and related events involve visitations from other "realities" or "dimensions" that coexist separately alongside our own. It is not necessarily an alternative to the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) since the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive so both could be true simultaneously. IDH also holds that UFOs are a modern manifestation of a phenomenon that has occurred throughout recorded human history, which in prior ages were ascribed to mythological or supernatural creatures.[1]

Contents
  • 1Theory
  • 2See also
  • 3References
  • 4Further reading
Although ETH has remained the predominant explanation for UFOs by UFOlogists,[2] some ufologists have abandoned it in favor of IDH. Paranormal researcher Brad Steiger wrote that "we are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon that is largely indigenous to planet Earth".[3] Other UFOlogists, such as John Ankerberg and John Weldon, advocate IDH because it fits the explanation of UFOs as a spiritistic phenomenon. Commenting on the disparity between the ETH and the accounts that people have made of UFO encounters, Ankerberg and Weldon wrote "the UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like extraterrestrial visitors."[4] In the book UFOs: Operation Trojan Horse published in 1970, John Keel linked UFOs to folkloric or supernatural concepts such as ghosts and demons.

The development of IDH as an alternative to ETH increased in the 1970s and 1980s with the publication of books by Vallée and J. Allen Hynek. In 1975, Vallée and Hynek advocated the hypothesis in The Edge of Reality: A Progress Report on Unidentified Flying Objects and further, in Vallée's 1979 book Messengers of Deception: UFO Contacts and Cults.[5]

Some UFO proponents accepted IDH because the distance between stars makes interstellar travel impractical using conventional means and nobody had demonstrated an antigravity or faster-than-light travel hypothesis that could explain extraterrestrial machines. With IDH, it is unnecessary to explain any propulsion method because the IDH holds that UFOs are not spacecraft, but rather devices that travel between different realities.[6]

One advantage of IDH proffered by Hilary Evans is its ability to explain the apparent ability of UFOs to appear and disappear from sight and radar; this is explained as the UFO entering and leaving our dimension ("materializing" and "dematerializing"). Moreover, Evans argues that if the other dimension is slightly more advanced than ours, or is our own future, this would explain the UFOs' tendency to represent near future technologies (airships in the 1890s, rockets and supersonic travel in the 1940s, etc.).[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_hypothesis

Ultraterrestrial
A superior, non-human entity of natural or supernatural origin that is indigenous to planet Earth.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ultraterrestrial
 
It's the antithesis to extraterrestrial.

The term comes about as a result of the IDH, or interdimensional hypothesis, to explain UAP phenomena without necessary recourse to extraterrestrials. Astronomers J Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallée are credited with advancing the hypothesis subsequent to their work in Project Bluebook, the USAF's official investigation in the phenomena at the time.

The term ultraterrestrial itself was first used by John Keel in his 1975 book The Mothman Prophecies, meaning beings native to Earth who “inhabited parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that were imperceptible to the human eye” (p. 239)


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


https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ultraterrestrial

First, there are real problems with the idea that something is inhabiting parts of the electromagnetic spectrum but imperceptible to the human eye. Even in 1975, there were holes in that idea that you can drive a bus through. The fact that we have detectors as far up and down the electromagnetic spectrum as possible and are constantly making more and more sensitive ones. Even if there was something we couldn't detect directly, conservation of energy would still presumably be a thing and we'd see energy getting siphoned off into nothingness.

It's not impossible, but the obvious flaws should probably be substantively addressed before anyone trots that one out.

Second, if a planet is in another dimension in what sense is it still Earth? There's this weird thing that goes on when people imagine other dimensions where it's assumed that they're identical to our own except in tiny little ways, and so therefore it's somehow meaningful to label a planet as "Earth from Dimension-QW47J".

Even assuming a common starting state for all dimensions, if every quantum choice is truly probabilistic for each dimension there's almost no chance that any given dimension is similar enough to ours to not warrant being considered it's own entirely independent entity. The Moon isn't considered "Earth, but in orbit" even though it's made up of mostly material from the Earth and that's still in our own dimension. And the Moon is going to be much more similar to Earth than a random habitable planet that isn't even connected to our space/time. And then you get into the problem that there doesn't appear to be any reference points in our universe, and so you'd have at best a hell of a time even picking which galaxy was most like the Milky Way out of another dimension, let alone somehow finding a specific planet.

So if you somehow get beings from another dimension, they're extraterrestrials. They're not from Earth, the planet that we live on, that thing that everyone means when they say "Earth". Anything else is playing silly buggers with words unless you have very strong evidence to suggest why two separate planets should be considered a single entity. And it better be amazing, because as the old misquotation goes "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Not really that scientific, I'm afraid. Interdimensional visitors are a possibility - it's far enough outside the bounds of what we understand that any guess is only a guess. But calling them "ultraterrestrials" is just misleading and displays how little the proponent of the idea has actually bothered to think it through. Watching The Outer Limits does not count as groundbreaking and revolutionary thought.
 
Last edited:
Is fusion now no longer always 30 years in the future?

Below, Forbes contributor discusses technology, Occam's razor and US Navy motivations.



EDITORS' PICK|Feb 8, 2021,08:38am EST|120,755 views
What Is Behind The U.S. Navy’s ‘UFO’ Fusion Energy Patent?

Ariel Cohen
Contributor
Energy
I cover energy, security, Europe, Russia/Eurasia & the Middle East

960x0.jpg

An unidentified flying object, as seen in a recently declassified Department of Defense video.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

When Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, an aerospace engineer at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), filed a patent for a“Plasma Compression Fusion Device” in 2019, it was either a giant breakthrough – or mad science. According to the patent application, the miniature device could contain and sustain fusion reactions capable of generating power in the gigawatt (1 billion watts) to terawatt (1 trillion watts) range or more. A large coal plant or mid-size nuclear powered reactor by comparison produces energy in the 1–2 gigawatt range. The revolutionary invention by Dr. Pais, if real, would produce near unlimited clean energy from something no larger than a sports utility vehicle.

Dr. Pais’ fusion device is among a handful of outlandish technologies dubbed “The UFO patents” that have, in some shape or form, been pursued by the U.S. Navy.
  • I’ve written before with some skepticism on the implications of Dr. Pais’ purported compact fusion reactor for U.S. energy independence. The physicist appears to have bona fide credentials including a Ph.D. from Case Western, and published some of his work, while much is presumably classified.

    He has been employed by the Pentagon for decades. And this isn’t the first patent filed in his name, and all of them appear centered around what he calls the Pais Effect. Dr. Pais posits that by controlling the accelerated spin or vibration of electrically charged matter, high energy electromagnetic fields can be produced.

    One proposed use for such fields is an “electromagnetic field generator” device which could be applied to alter the trajectory of earthbound asteroids over a period of time. While the patent makes clear that such a device would work only on “small” asteroids of under roughly 100 meters length or less, it isn’t hard to grasp the interest of any defense agency in providing contingencies for such a scenario.

    Dr. Pais’ “inertial mass reduction device” is one of his most extraordinary patents. This technology suggests manipulation of quantum field fluctuations which could reduce a vehicle’s inertial and gravitational mass, allowing it to travel at hitherto unseen speeds. The reason the speed of lightis something of a universal speed limit is that mass increases to infinite as one reaches it, demanding infinite energy to continue moving. The ability to reduce mass could have incredible implications for the future of space travel. Only faster than light speeds of travel would allow the humanity to venture outside of the solar system.

    His High Temperature Superconductor patent would, like a fusion device, revolutionize global energy systems. Superconductors have no electrical resistance, meaning electricity can be transferred without loss of energy to unlimited distances. That could mean quite a drop in energy costs, but getting any superconductor to operate even as warm as room temperatureis a longstanding problem.

    Last but not least is what Pais calls a high frequency gravitational wave generator. The patent purports that the electromagnetic fields created by the Pais Effect could be intersected, generating waves of gravity upon which a spaceship could propel itself to its destination. Such waves could also be used to deflect asteroids more efficiently or communicate through solid objects.

    960x0.jpg

    High frequency gravitational wave generator. Per the description: A high frequency gravitational ... [+]GOOGLE PATENTS
    Any one of these “UFO” patents would transform modern science and society. It might be too early to break out the champagne, though. While Dr. Pais has spoken confidently about his work in the past, the Navy recently threw cold water on hopes of a breakthrough.

    Queries about his experiments were met with confirmation that a three-year $508,000 assessment had found no proof of the Pais Effect. For now at least, the odds are good that the Navy may not lead the energy revolution, while President Joe Biden expends political capital squaring off against fossil fuel companies.

    That brings us back to his fusion device. Even if Dr. Pais is wrong, it doesn’t mean fusion is going to stay the stuff of science fiction forever, though. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, an initiative with roots stretching back to a November 1985 summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, is currently scheduled to generate its first “small star” in November 2025. Various projects are racing them there, all with that shared goal of 2025.

    All this is to say that fusion might no longer be perpetually thirty years away.

    With some tangible, well-funded projects underway, it raises the question of why the Navy has previously gone to bat for Dr. Pais — and his ideas, which seem considerably ahead of their time if not outright implausible. The other possibilities are worth pondering though.

    960x0.jpg

    A picture shows winding facility for the construction of poloidal field coils which will be part of ... [+]

    AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
    Occam’s Razor would suggest there might be something there. A genuine breakthrough in theoretical physics so advanced would require serious and well-funded lab work and prototype experimentation for years or even decades. Think of the long journey from J.J. Thompson’s discovery of the electron (1897) and Rutherford’s atomic model (1911) to the Manhattan Project (1939-1946). There are defense applications to most physics breakthroughs, and that is plenty incentive to invest in any potential Enrico Fermi, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, or Andrey Sakharov. The patents could be a sort of hedging, ensuring the United States can claim it was there first.

    A second explanation is that is a U.S. disinformation operation to entice our adversaries into spending billions of dollars on dead-end research. That was more or less the initial thinking behind President Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiative. By faking data, the officials behind the program hoped to entice the Soviets to burn billions for a then-non-viable space-based missile defense system. Sending China on a wild goose chase for the Pais Effect would be a clever use of half a million dollars. Otherwise, his research would be deeply classified and not patented.

    Lastly, and most out there, Dr. Pais’ patents could be a cover for alien technology. If the recent disclosure by the Pentagon of possible encounters with extraterrestrial artifacts is true, such technology may be in the U.S. Government’s possession. Talk about a low probability, high impact event!

    I am not sure if we will see Faster Than Light space travel any time soon, but with or without Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, the race for fusion power is on, and we are likely to see a successful result within our lifetime.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielc...vys-ufo-fusion-energy-patent/?sh=6f80eaf04733
 
Last edited:
Patents being entirely reliable documents where people never exaggerate, broaden claims or just speculatively claim stuff on the basis that the worst that can happen is that it gets thrown out. Or in the case of the military, are designed to try and get adversaries to waste limited time and resources chasing red herrings.

If the Navy were working on such things, there's no way that it would be naming them such clear and descriptive things as "inertial mass reduction". First, it's a great way to give away your tech to spies who have access to much more information than the average net denizen. Second, it's a labyrinthine bureaucracy that can't put pants on without a requisition in triplicate signed by the Deputy Sub-Director of Undergarment Adjustment.

Fusion is going to continue to be thirty years away right up to the point that someone actually builds one that achieves over unity. Given your age, I wouldn't hold my breath for it happening in your lifetime and I have serious doubts about it happening in mine.
 
Back