Dan Smith - May 5th - Part One Dan Smith-May5-07-...
Dan Smith - May 5th - Part Two
Dan Smith-May5-07-...



UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - http://www.openmindsforum.com/
UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 2, 2007, 3:56am





UFO, ALIEN, DISCLOSURE, SERPO, SEINU, PROJECT-CAMELOT - Open Minds Forum - WWW.OpenMindsForum.com :: General :: UFO/ Alien / Exobiology :: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
   [Search This Thread] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]
 Author Topic: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed (Read 51,878 times)
colorsymphony
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 66
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1440 on Today at 12:54am

organelle, you have good points but i think you might be missing the point that if this is military and they retrieved this technology from ET technology, then isn't it probable there is a more advanced way for this thing to land rather than "human-engineered landing gear"?????? if they got this tech from the ET's, stolen ideas, recovered craft, whatever - then hello? its ET based, there's not going to be anything about it that looks or moves in an earthly fashion.

Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
spf33
Full Member
***
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Posts: 96
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1441 on Today at 1:07am

compelling insights organelle.

not that you even hinted at it, but now i'm wondering if the the chad object and the raj object could be 2 pieces of the same object.

the load bearing struts first struck me as some sort of piping; pumping or suctioning something thru the arms. but i suppose that could even be some sort of cooling mechanism.



Last Edit: Today at 1:07am by spf33 Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
italiclikeitis
Junior Member
**
member is offline





Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 13
Location: Ontario, Canada
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1442 on Today at 1:12am


Yesterday at 10:23pm, TheShadow wrote:
The reports at nuforc.org are recent as of 4/27 only. That is why i figured i would drop him an email and see if maybe we get a response.

Mr. Davenport has never stopped in here that i am aware of....maybe the link will lure him this way!


Thanks for the info Shadow. I sure would like to hear his opinion, and May 2007 reports there could be interesting.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
10538
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 202
Location: California
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1443 on Today at 1:20am


Today at 12:38am, organelle wrote:


Now let me underline a few things:

If the thing lands, it doesn't have what looks like human-engineered landing gear. If it landed on a flat surface, it would not be 'stable' in the way a human engineer would -habitually desire-. Nor would it be parallel to the flat landing area, another thing -nearly every human aircraft evinces - and even 'flying saucers' are reported to evince.

There is an easy answer to this: It 'lands' around the point of a cone.

Now, don't just go and decide this is -what is true- because it looks like it fits. But we can play with the idea...sure, ok, it lands around the point of a cone linke a doughnut would. Great...now just explain to me why the arms are stair-stepped, and why they have load-bearing braces?

-what load are they designed to bear-???


Could it be they are not load bearing braces? Maybe they are conduits. In the pics some of the small arms had one rod and some had two.

I could see landing on a cone. But would the cone damage the diodes? And what if the thing needed to make an unscheduled landing and the cone was not available?

About the object only having markings on the bottom. We have not seen photos from the top. We don't know what the top side has. Also, if the small arms fold up then you would still be able to read them in that position.
Last Edit: Today at 1:22am by 10538 Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
steve
New Member
*
member is offline

[avatar]


[homepage]

Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 3
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1444 on Today at 1:49am

Thank you Raj for your information. Would you welcome then being interviewed by a Mufon field investigator living in your local area? It would be great to go to the spot where these photos were taken, interview the witnesses. Why did you contact Linda Moulton Howe, and not Mufon, or the National UFO Reporting Center too?

Thanks,

Steve
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

'I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night.' -- Sarah Williams
Nemo492
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 156
Location: Paris, France
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1445 on Today at 2:03am


Today at 1:49am, steve wrote:
Thank you Raj for your information. Would you welcome then being interviewed by a Mufon field investigator living in your local area?
Steve


Such invitation seems premature (to me), since Admin has done all the works to invite Raj on OM, and we are in the process of an interview.
To say the truth, i see such request as totally unfair.

Also, you're the guy you called Chad's pictures "bogus"... and posted a wrong NOOA report. Yesterday's crap would make your top itw to-morrow ?
He's not even a registered Mufon investigator for California
http://www.mufon.com/california.html
Last Edit: Today at 2:21am by Nemo492 Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

http://ovnis-usa.com/
Double_Nought_Spy
Full Member
***
member is online





Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 32
Location: Colorful Colorado
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1446 on Today at 2:09am

What? I think it's a great idea, and what better time to ask, while Raj is still here (presumably). Back in the olden days, when people didn't have email and such, ufo witnesses were routinely interviewed in person, by other people. That was cool.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
colorsymphony
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 66
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1447 on Today at 2:23am


Today at 1:49am, steve wrote:
Why did you contact Linda Moulton Howe?


HE DIDN'T!
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
organelle
Junior Member
**
member is online

[avatar]


[homepage]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 16
 Re: Arms & Cones
Reply #1448 on Today at 2:23am

10538:

Good point about the cone-landing damaging the inner wires. I generally agree and amended my post.

The 'conduit' question is a bit more complex. My sense is that they look like support struts. It's not impossible they're actually conduits, but it seems unlikely. Conduits of what? This thing doesn't seem to need any (stinking?) conduits!

:)

It does look possible that some arms have 2 struts and some others (smaller) have one. But I am still uncertain that in the Chad images the arms are 2 sizes. (I think they appear thus).

Last Edit: Today at 2:27am by organelle Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

New Ways of Knowing: http://www.organelle.org/
Nemo492
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is offline




[homepage]

Joined: Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 156
Location: Paris, France
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1449 on Today at 2:32am


Today at 2:23am, colorsymphony wrote:

Today at 1:49am, steve wrote:
Why did you contact Linda Moulton Howe?


HE DIDN'T!


Correct. It was Chad. Quote from Linda MH : "Chad wrote to me on May 10..."

This guy Steve should learn the story before he claims to be an investigator.

BTW anybody knows where the 'Next questions to Raj' have been listed ?
Last Edit: Today at 2:34am by Nemo492 Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

http://ovnis-usa.com/
Dragonfire
UFO/EXOBIO MODERATOR
*****
member is offline

[avatar]

Deceptive Fence-sitter



Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,793
Location: Somewhere in time
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1450 on Today at 2:34am

A thought here, could it be that the object needs no "landing gear' because it has some sort of "Docking" station.
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Irritating the world, one person at a time.
colorsymphony
Full Member
***
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 66
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1451 on Today at 2:41am


Today at 2:32am, Nemo492 wrote:

Today at 2:23am, colorsymphony wrote:


HE DIDN'T!


Correct. It was Chad. Quote from Linda MH : "Chad wrote to me on May 10..."

This guy Steve should learn the story before he claims to be an investigator.

BTW anybody knows where the 'Next questions to Raj' have been listed ?


?? i thought chad contacted coast to coast ??

you should probably learn the story as well.

raj first posted on craigslist sanfrancisco, then made a flikr account. he has only come into contact with OMF.

am i getting something wrong here?
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged
epo3
Forum Peer-Group Member
*****
member is online

[avatar]



Joined: Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: Up-state NY
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1452 on Today at 2:43am


Today at 2:23am, organelle wrote:
10538:

Good point about the cone-landing damaging the inner wires. I generally agree and amended my post.

The 'conduit' question is a bit more complex. My sense is that they look like support struts. It's not impossible they're actually conduits, but it seems unlikely. Conduits of what? This thing doesn't seem to need any (stinking?) conduits!

:)

It does look possible that some arms have 2 struts and some others (smaller) have one. But I am still uncertain that in the Chad images the arms are 2 sizes. (I think they appear thus).




IMO if there is SUPER CONDUCTORS involved then cooling conduits could be a viable possibility...Also floating around in our atmosphere would need a lot of power, regardless of the system used....you know 1lb lifted 1ft equals etc,etc. :P


The steps in the arms may also be baring weight while part of the lifting action?

Landing gear? now days it is usually hidden or retracted...

just some thoughts....

epo3


Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.
Douglas MacArthur
organelle
Junior Member
**
member is online

[avatar]


[homepage]

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 16
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1453 on Today at 2:57am


Today at 2:34am, Dragonfire wrote:
A thought here, could it be that the object needs no "landing gear' because it has some sort of "Docking" station.


Agreed, but what sort of 'station' (read 'a static structure') would adeptly handle such different craft (as those in the various (non-alabama) images)?

The more I look at this thing (Raj's craft is unique in that the lower flanges under the ring look delicate and like they should never touch the ground bearing force or weight)... the more I think: 'Ehm, this can't land' (i.e: it doesn't land. it's stored floating or something).

On the other hand, I can think of a structure one could 'land' the three different configurations (cell, chad, raj) on. I'm not sure I can think of a single structure, but an easily reconfigurable structure can be imagined. Think of a standing tube that would be slightly larger in diameter than the ring. Such a tube could be designed to be reconfigured for different craft configurations. In fact, in the Raj images there's an apparently intentional gap between the ring and the stepped arms (as seen from underneath).

This tube strategy would result in a stable and horizontal landing position, and would put minimal stress on any arms. (Not that the arms have to stay attached, The large arm may be detachable. The smaller arms may also be detachable, or might fold upward. If they fold upward, this could explain why anyone would cover them in text, in that position, the text might be legible to anyone approaching the craft from that angle.)

Also, the 'bumps' around the craft on the edge of the ring and its underside must serve some purpose. The primary purpose of these kinds of 'bumps' isn't cosmetic, it's to cause them to lock-fit with some other structure. An artist might add them cosmetically, an engineer wouldn't. These bumps imply to me that the fuselage (ring) is engineered to 'fit into' something. The bumps on the bottom may imply 'stackability' (i.e: you can stack rings and lock them together for easy transport). In any case, these 'bumps' have to do with the relationship of this object to 'other structures' and this is a useful clue.

Of course, again, all of this supposes that the objects in question were actual flying objects engineered for some purpose.
Last Edit: Today at 3:07am by organelle Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

New Ways of Knowing: http://www.organelle.org/
Dragonfire
UFO/EXOBIO MODERATOR
*****
member is offline

[avatar]

Deceptive Fence-sitter



Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,793
Location: Somewhere in time
 Re: UFO -'best yet'? up close and detailed
Reply #1454 on Today at 3:01am

Problem with the pictures is we can't see the "whole" top. Could be hangers or some other type of device to "dock the thing "under".
Link to Post - Back to Top  IP: Logged

Irritating the world, one person at a time.
   [Search This Thread] [Send Topic To Friend] [Print]

The Alien Seeker News

Click to discover what is: - 'Exempt From Disclosure'


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Click Here To Make This Board Ad-Free



This Board Hosted For FREE By ProBoards
Get Your Own Free Message Board!