Reversed Eng Saucers & Warp Drives

9 views
Skip to first unread message

rmc...@sprintmail.com

unread,
Mar 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/31/97
to


"Black Boxes" and Reversed Engineered Saucers ?

By: Robert M. Collins

--------------------------------------


Note: This article is in no way
supportive to Bob Lazar!


--------------------------------------

From Intel Sources and Tech Journal articles the future "Warp Drives" may
not look like anything in the Star Trek series or movies.

"Black Boxes" and Reversed Engineered Saucers ?

It has been reported over the last several years that in Reverse
Engineering these reportedly recovered Saucers the Air force and others
were required to design our own control systems around the "Alien"
technology because it was said that the "Alien" control systems were so
far advanced that we had no hope of understanding them if we were to get a
working device within a reasonable amount of time. Well, whats reasonable
? Fifty years ? The Cash Landrum case, a well known case in UFO circles,
circa 1980; is speculated to have been one of these "Reversed Engineered
Devices" gone out of control: One reporting source, a Ret AF LtCol, has
stated that a few of these reversed engineered prototypes have been lost
in the Gulf of Mexico due to problems with the "Black Boxes:" These
reportedly control the "Anti Grav Force Fields" around the device. It can
be noted that the Cash Landrum case occured close to the Gulf. Aside: The
power plant in the Cash Landrum case was reported to be Nuclear because we
didn't understand the "Alien's" power system. Also, this is probably one
good reason why we still fly Space Shuttles and their forecasted updates
still on the drawing board. Unlike the ID4 movie there is no sudden
breakthrough here even with all the supposed cooperation from the
"Visitors." If this reported story is true then all the "Secrecy" has only
caused the whole effort to be set back further.

Note to reader: The above is just being reported: The sources who make up
this report do not, and I repeat do not, want their names publicly known.
So, whether you believe it or not is your choice.

@Rmc 1996

WARP DRIVES: OVERVIEW:

SETI, the Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive: An
Integrating Overview

H.E. Puthoff, Physics Essays, Vol 9, number 1, 1996

Abstract:

In SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) conventional wisdom has
it that the probability of direct contact by interstellar travel is
vanishingly small due to the enormous distances involved, coupled with the
velocity-of-light limitation. Alcubierre's recent "Warp Drive" analysis
[ref; Classical Quantum Gravity, 11, L73 (1994)] within the context of
"General Relativistic Dynamics" ,however, indicates the naivete' of this
assumption. In the main article (see ref in heading) it can be shown that
Alcubierre's result is a particular case of a broad, general approach that
might loosely be called "Metric Engineering," the details of which provide
yet further support for the concept that reduced-time interstellar travel,
either by advanced extraterrestrial civilizations at present or ourselves
in the future, is not, as naive' consideration might hold, fundamentally
constrained by physical principles.

For more information on Faster Than Light Travel or "Warp Drives" see URL:

http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/~schatzer/space-time.html

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Michael Edelman

unread,
Apr 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/1/97
to

rmc...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>

>
> From Intel Sources and Tech Journal articles

Trick #1: Pretend to have access to authority- the unnamed "Intel
sources" and the non-existant "Tech Journals". If there were such
JOurnals, he could cite them.


>...the future "Warp Drives" may


> not look like anything in the Star Trek series or movies.

This will come as quite a shock to the readers of this list who think
Star Trek is a documentary.

> "Black Boxes" and Reversed Engineered Saucers ?
>
> It has been reported over the last several years that in Reverse
> Engineering these reportedly recovered Saucers the Air force and others

It has? Where, other than in fictional accounts appearing in fringe
sci-fi magazines?

[snip]


>
> WARP DRIVES: OVERVIEW:
>
> SETI, the Velocity-of-Light Limitation, and the Alcubierre Warp Drive:

Ah. Alcubierre again. Yes, the math sort of works, if you don't have any
real knowledge of physics, the nergies involved, and the problem of
warping space over large distances without generating the kinds of
gravitational disturbances that would be readily detectable on earth.
I.e., nice try.


> H.E. Puthoff, Physics Essays, Vol 9, number 1, 1996

Puthoff, along with partner Targ, for years published some very sloppy
"ESP" work in non-refereed articless from SRI, a serious sounding
organization whose only connection with the scientific community was
having the word "Stanford" in its name. About they only thing they
demonstrated was that none of their purported effets works when anyone
was watching ;-). Public interest in ESP having gone downhill
drastically in the last dozen years as the uneducated became more
interested in millenial cults and UFOs, Puthoff wisely (and abruptly)
transformed from ESP expert to UFO expert. All this may not say anything
about UFO research as a whole, but it says much about Puthoff.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Edelman m...@pass.wayne.edu
Wayne State University voice: (313) 577-0742
Computing & Information Technology fax: (313) 577-8787
Academic Computing & Support Services
Detroit MI 48070 http://www.pass.wayne.edu/~mje/home.html

Brian Zeiler

unread,
Apr 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/2/97
to

On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 09:13:54 -0500, Michael Edelman
<m...@pass.wayne.edu> wrote:

>rmc...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> From Intel Sources and Tech Journal articles
>
>Trick #1: Pretend to have access to authority- the unnamed "Intel
>sources"

Heh. You're just jealous, Michael.

>and the non-existant "Tech Journals". If there were such
>JOurnals, he could cite them.

He's obviously referring to "Classical and Quantum Gravity", the
journal in which Alcubierre's letter was published. If you weren't a
foaming idiot, you'd know this.

>Ah. Alcubierre again. Yes, the math sort of works, if you don't have any
>real knowledge of physics, the nergies involved, and the problem of
>warping space over large distances without generating the kinds of
>gravitational disturbances that would be readily detectable on earth.
>I.e., nice try.

You're full of shit, Edelman. I'm growing very tired of hearing your
utterly worthless, vague, specious attacks on that article. You have
NEVER given any *specific* argument that addresses his work -- never.
You simply blather and bluster, always beating around the bush. What
I want is a SPECIFIC rebuttal that SPECIFICALLY addresses his
quantitative arguments. In other words, SHOW why the gravitational
disturbances would be readily detectable on Earth. Show how the
"energies involved" are prohibitive. Show how you have "real
knowledge of physics", unlike Alcubierre, who is an academic
physicist.

Give your argument the way an academic would, instead of your vague
blathering, for *once*. I predict, however, that you won't, since
you're a hollow, fraudulent, cowardly crackpot. You backed off my
challenge to critique McDonald's essays, too. Your arguments are just
hollow nonsense, always avoiding the specific, substantive points and
relying instead on empty rhetoric, e.g., "a real physicist knows that
this is crap." That might work at your lowly job, but this is
academia, not managing a Unix at a mediocre tech college.

>Puthoff, along with partner Targ, for years published some very sloppy
>"ESP" work in non-refereed articless from SRI, a serious sounding
>organization whose only connection with the scientific community was
>having the word "Stanford" in its name. About they only thing they
>demonstrated was that none of their purported effets works when anyone
>was watching ;-).

More bullshit. The SRI ESP experiments have been replicated in six
different labs around the world, and skeptic Hyman cannot find any
flaw in the methodology, experimental design, or statistical
inference.

This is classic Edelman. All bullshit, no substance. He can't muster
a specific criticism to save his life, and he'll prove it by avoiding
my challenge and choosing instead to post more inane insults.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
-----------------------
GO BREWERS!
____________________________________________________________________________

Michael Edelman

unread,
Apr 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM4/3/97
to

More brilliant insight from the infantile mouth of Brian Zeiler:

>
> On Tue, 01 Apr 1997 09:13:54 -0500, Michael Edelman
> <m...@pass.wayne.edu> wrote:
>
> >rmc...@sprintmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> From Intel Sources and Tech Journal articles
> >
> >Trick #1: Pretend to have access to authority- the unnamed "Intel
> >sources"
>
> Heh. You're just jealous, Michael.

Really? You believe he has contact with "Intel Sources"? I didn't know
that you were also an expert in "Intel sources", Brian! Perhaps you'd
share with us where you got this information.

Funny, if we're to believe this crowd, the entire US intelligence
community is running around with spacemen, reverse engineering saucers
and threatening witnesses. And for some reason, they confide all this
information to only to the unstable, and to authors of UFO books and
magazines!

How come none of my government jobs were ever that interesting? Maybe I
had the wrong civil service rating; I should take the clerk-typist-UFO
surpressor test next time.

> >and the non-existant "Tech Journals". If there were such
> >JOurnals, he could cite them.
>
> He's obviously referring to "Classical and Quantum Gravity", the
> journal in which Alcubierre's letter was published. If you weren't a
> foaming idiot, you'd know this.

He is? Funny, nothing other than your vivid imagination suggested that.

By the way, what's a "fomaing idiot"?

I think we know why Brian never finished his supposed higher education-
I suspect he was just a little too high strung for class participation.
After all, all his teachers and fellow students were foaming idiots and
mentally impaired and so forth and he couldn't be expected to work with
such people could he?

Of course not.



> >Ah. Alcubierre again. Yes, the math sort of works, if you don't have any
> >real knowledge of physics, the nergies involved, and the problem of
> >warping space over large distances without generating the kinds of
> >gravitational disturbances that would be readily detectable on earth.
> >I.e., nice try.
>
> You're full of shit, Edelman. I'm growing very tired of hearing your
> utterly worthless, vague, specious attacks on that article. You have
> NEVER given any *specific* argument that addresses his work -- never.
> You simply blather and bluster, always beating around the bush. What
> I want is a SPECIFIC rebuttal that SPECIFICALLY addresses his
> quantitative arguments. In other words, SHOW why the gravitational
> disturbances would be readily detectable on Earth. Show how the
> "energies involved" are prohibitive. Show how you have "real
> knowledge of physics", unlike Alcubierre, who is an academic
> physicist.

As if Brian's self-admitted ignorance of physics wasn't enough, we now
have a practical demonstration. He has absolutely no understanding of
what Alcubierre wrote, other than he thinks it makes FTL travel
possible. His ignorance is, shall we say, palpable. He doesn't even
understand the objections.



> Give your argument the way an academic would, instead of your vague
> blathering, for *once*.

Oh, the answer as an academic would? Here:

"Go read a book on physics, young man, and come back when you have some
understanding instead of wasting my time."

Brian, you don't even understand when your questions have been answered
;-)

I predict, however, that you won't, since
> you're a hollow, fraudulent, cowardly crackpot. You backed off my
> challenge to critique McDonald's essays, too. Your arguments are just
> hollow nonsense, always avoiding the specific, substantive points and
> relying instead on empty rhetoric, e.g., "a real physicist knows that
> this is crap." That might work at your lowly job, but this is
> academia, not managing a Unix at a mediocre tech college.

And it appears he's not a very good investigator, even when I give him
my web page!

I'm a project manager, btw, at the third largest univewrsity in
Michigan. We have 70,000 students, full and part time. It's all in my
web page, along with a picture of a dead cat that Brian fixated on some
time ago, claiming I had an unnatural attachment to it ;-) My attachment
to it was purely natural, I assure you ;-)

Brian of course supplies no personal data on himself. All we can tell
is that he never finished school, probably because he was smarter than
everyone there ;-)

> >Puthoff, along with partner Targ, for years published some very sloppy
> >"ESP" work in non-refereed articless from SRI, a serious sounding
> >organization whose only connection with the scientific community was
> >having the word "Stanford" in its name. About they only thing they
> >demonstrated was that none of their purported effets works when anyone
> >was watching ;-).
>
> More bullshit. The SRI ESP experiments have been replicated in six
> different labs around the world, and skeptic Hyman cannot find any
> flaw in the methodology, experimental design, or statistical
> inference.

Yes, all of them at least at reputable and accurate as SRI. INterested
parties are directed to Martin Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies in the Name
of Science, published 30+ years ago. Even then, Gardner had well
documented Puthoff's frauds.

> This is classic Edelman. All bullshit, no substance. He can't muster
> a specific criticism to save his life, and he'll prove it by avoiding
> my challenge and choosing instead to post more inane insults.

There's Brian for you- doesn't even see the facts when they're under his
nose. Brian, if it was a snake, it would have bit ya!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages