3 hours ago, Fielder said:

I bought a pair of antigravity shoes from a door to door salesman. Made an offer I couldn't resist. 

 

6 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Well, the footage of these objects is itself evidence that these objects can indeed withstand the forces.  Are you saying that you don't believe the footage is real?

Dave

 

You said that they would have to be drones because the human body couldn't withstand the immense g-forces. My point is that nether could the structure of the drone/craft. In which case IF they are real, then the nature of the propulsion mechanism itself, some kind of bubble, or an additional inertial dampening device would be required.

 

As for "footage" which footage do you mean? Which footage demonstrates physics defying, super high g-force being withstood? As far as I know, no such footage is available, all we have is claims of such behavior. 

Jumping in on this one...

It is well established that defense contractors can sit on advanced technologies for a very long time before ever making a peep about its existence. They have the infrastructure for it.

The B2 stealth bomber first flew 36 years ago (in 1989). 36 years before that (in 1953), the most advanced jet taking flight was the F100 Super Sabre. Today, the B2 is still the tip of the spear that we know of (ish).

What are the odds that, since 1989, while all civilian technology has advanced by lightyears, military aircraft technology has NOT?  (Several trillion dollars later?)

 

Defense contractors are massive, complex organizations that are spread out geographically, so creating compartments within compartments to hide technology isn't out of the question - even from senior management.....especially when certain parts of the US Government.... DoD, CIA, DIA, NRO, DoE etc. are involved.

Let's also look at incentives.....these guys are paid to supply weapons to fight today's conflicts, and to arm various governments around the world to "keep up with the Joneses"....so the step-wise evolution of defense technology is very logical....and highly profitable.

Vehicles that can perform like the TicTac has been described would be checkmate-game over technology for anybody who has it. Period. You could win/end any conflict rapidly and definitively....and that's very bad for business. Kind of like nukes, but worse.

 

So....IF Lockheed Martin was sitting on technology like the TicTac:

 - There is no financial incentive to reveal its existence to the world. (at this time)

 - Any government agencies in the know would be extremely paranoid about keeping in secret, because if you tell the public, you also tell Russia and China what you have...and they'll know where to look to steal the tech.

 - LM (and Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics etc.) would have all of the necessary infrastructure to keep its existence well hidden (deniable even)

 - It would be in their interest to let the public think it's a UFO if it were ever spotted.

 - It would be in their interest to let the rank-and-file military think it was a UFO if it were spotted...up to and including Generals / Admirals etc. (helps with deniability)

 - It would likely be seen as a very cool toy that is out of place in the current geopolitical climate. Don't give the primitive apes nukes...they will be mis-used.....and it will break your business model.

 

Until I have my hands on one, it'll be tough to know for sure, but all of the above flows logically. All that's missing is confirmation of a massive leap in propulsion technology.....kindof like all of the work that went into anti-gravity tech in the 40's and 50's - on the level of another nuclear arms race - that suddenly went very quiet, and the fact the the US Government has been actively seizing patents related to new energy and propulsion technology for decades.......🤔

 

DB

 

 

On 7/9/2025 at 5:38 AM, jon b said:

If this were true Perhaps LM could explain why when the world is being told fossil fuels are the cause of the worlds imminent collapse they’ve been sat on what I can only presume is an extremely efficient and clean source of propulsion for the last 20 years? 

They're not the ones telling you that...

It's also not in their interests to let you know what they have.

 

Quote

If these things were man made I’d have some very serious questions as to why they think it’s acceptable to fly these things without clearance,unchecked in controlled airspace in (very) close proximity to airliners.

1 - They don't really care.....and likely have some sophisticated systems to de-conflict them from other traffic when needed. 

2 - It would be unwise to assume that all are US technology.....or that all are man made. There may not be a simple answer to any of this.

 

DB

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

As for "footage" which footage do you mean? Which footage demonstrates physics defying, super high g-force being withstood? As far as I know, no such footage is available, all we have is claims of such behavior

Yes, the actual footage only shows the strange object speeding along and rotating, but the pilots claimed that they accelerated and changed direction with astonishing speed.  There are many other witnesses to similar behavior.

A drone could indeed be built to withstand extremely high G-forces.  Even current aircraft can withstand extreme forces, but the pilot's can't.

You don't necessarily need Star Trek inertial dampening field sci-fi tech to make a drone that can do near 90-degree turns on a dime.

Dave

Edited July 10, 2025Jul 10 by dave2013

3 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

A drone could indeed be built to withstand extremely high G-forces.  Even current aircraft can withstand extreme forces, but the pilot's can't.

You don't necessarily need Star Trek inertial dampening field sci-fi tech to make a drone that can do near 90-degree turns on a dime.

I think it's safe to assume that if you can make something accelerate instantaneously, you have managed to overcome the effects of inertia, since they are correlated. Instantaneous 90-degree direction changes at high speed imply the ability to ability to 'ignore' inertia. 

These objects don't appear to be "moving" propulsively. Calculating G-forces seems unnecessary, and the comparisons that talk about these maneuvers flattening metal (or doing worse to the human body), are just used for effect to drive home the point that the tech is far beyond what we understand conventionally.

"Here's what would happen if we tried to do this" - one of Lou Elizondo's regular talking points, comparing the G-limit of the F16 to what these objects have apparently demonstrated.

I wouldn't be shocked if they don't experience the effects of inertia at all, and were a pretty comfortable ride from the inside.

DB

 

1 hour ago, DaviiB said:

Jumping in on this one...

It is well established that defense contractors can sit on advanced technologies for a very long time before ever making a peep about its existence. They have the infrastructure for it.

The B2 stealth bomber first flew 36 years ago (in 1989). 36 years before that (in 1953), the most advanced jet taking flight was the F100 Super Sabre. Today, the B2 is still the tip of the spear that we know of (ish).

Am I missing something? The programme that eventually produced the B2 was revealed to the public in 1980 by the Carter administration. The B2 made its first public appearance in 1988 at Palmdale, California.

Thirty-six years before that the Mig 19 (faster than the F100) made it's maiden flight....

 

9 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Am I missing something? The programme that eventually produced the B2 was revealed to the public in 1980 by the Carter administration. The B2 made its first public appearance in 1988 at Palmdale, California.

Thirty-six years before that the Mig 19 (faster than the F100) made it's maiden flight....

 

Not sure I follow.

The point I was making was about the giant leap forward technologically between 1953 and 1989 (between the F100 and B2).....and the apparently less-than-giant leap forward from 1989 to 2025 (between the B2 and.....B21 maybe??), despite massive parallel advances in technology over the same period...and an unfathomable amount of money spent. 

One could argue that jet engines and heavier-than-air aircraft can only get "so" advanced (convergence toward maximum efficiency), but my point stands....What has taken flight recently (that we know of) that logically explains the trillions of dollars spent in the last 36 years?

i.e. - All that money went somewhere, and it's not unreasonable to think they're sitting on some pretty wild stuff that the public never gets to see, because (in their opinion) it's not in their best interest to release it.

 

DB

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Yes, the actual footage only shows the strange object speeding along and rotating, but the pilots claimed that they accelerated and changed direction with astonishing speed.  There are many other witnesses to similar behavior.

 

It was the so called Gimbal video that demonstrated rotation, no speeding along, normal velocity. We can be very definitive that the rotation was simply the glare rotating not the object itself, as a result of the action of the ATFLIR pods de-=rotation mechanism. In fact, if you look at the cloud line and elements in the image when enlarged, they rotate in synchrony too, demonstrating that it was the entire image impacted. As you know, I'm a former photographer, and have seen glare rotate that way many times. You can demonstrate this quite simply with your mobile phone camera and a greasy lens and a bright light. 

The pilots in the 2015 gimbal video didn't comment on speed, apart from claims that other objects on the radar did that.  In the 2004 Nimitz incident it was claimed by Fravor that the object accelerated rapidly away... or rather, he said it vanished if I recall correctly. It was then claimed that the object that appeared at the CAP was the same object that had got there rapidly. So far, no video of physics defying maneuvers, just "what people say."

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

A drone could indeed be built to withstand extremely high G-forces.  Even current aircraft can withstand extreme forces, but the pilot's can't.

 

No, not the g-forces that have been claimed. I've seen claims of thousands of G.  I'll let you calculate the 80,000 feet down to 27,000 feet in 0.7 seconds, which was the claim I recall. 

 

Edit: according to Gemini AI... its 6723.63 G! 

 

2 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You don't necessarily need Star Trek inertial dampening field sci-fi tech to make a drone that can do near 90-degree turns on a dime.

 

Of course, I've posted videos here on the forum of racing drones doing that. But much more than that is claimed for the UAP's. 

Edited July 10, 2025Jul 10 by martin-w

ignore

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2025Jul 10 by martin-w