An Inquiry in to the Alien Reproduction Vehicle

[Bugfly]

I agree the basics are simple,
but I want to figure this out with theory all the way before I build to much more.
I have already built much of what is predicted and what others have done. Got no results from it.
my guess is that my numbers were totally wrong.
likely not nearly enough power into the fields.
the easy versions of the tests got me noting. and the larger versions are almost out of my price range, so I can't just go experiment with all of them.
likely only have one more try for the near future as far as tests. so I want it to be the correct one to test.
for me to be sure I have it right, I need the perfect version of the theories, and that is the messy version

spacecase0, Well, this will always be bad. Cause a theory never goes ahead of practice. But if you feel that you do not need to do it, because something is missing, then it is better not to do.

[spacecase0]

spacecase0, Well, this will always be bad. Cause a theory never goes ahead of practice. But if you feel that you do not need to do it, because something is missing, then it is better not to do.

you are right...
what I am going for is hard because it is likely not a thing yet.
I will relax some at my lack of knowing what is not known yet.

[ilandtan]

Gambeir,

Thanks for the promenade, for my understanding. I do appreciate it.

You guys make me feel like I walked into the advanced lectures accidentally, and know that I am way above my depth. The thing is there are so many leaps in postulation, that I don't see the breadcrumbs for constructive prediction. I understood your post until the statement about the male/female energy of creation. I guess Dollard doesn't believe in the simplest answer first, which is mitosis. Reproduction is sexless at the most fundamental examples of biology (i.e., bacteria). So I would rather entertain a change of state, rather than a union to manifest electricity. I think it more logical that influence from the relationship of background (counterspace?), to the foreground allows a vibration on some axis that allows manifestation of electricity, the relationship not the union. I know that yin/yang has been pushed through our understanding of everything.

My problem when we start making too many guesses about so many facets of creation, we start dreaming about unicorns.

Which is my problem with the Alexey videos, there is not any historical progression to success. He never proved the meat of his operation, and then boom he has a devices that moves like it was dangled by a string.

Now we're talking about crop circles.

Sorry dudes, no disrespect...death before dishonesty. I'm out of here.

[spacecase0]

Gambeir,

Thanks for the promenade, for my understanding. I do appreciate it.

You guys make me feel like I walked into the advanced lectures accidentally, and know that I am way above my depth. The thing is there are so many leaps in postulation, that I don't see the breadcrumbs for constructive prediction. I understood your post until the statement about the male/female energy of creation. I guess Dollard doesn't believe in the simplest answer first, which is mitosis. Reproduction is sexless at the most fundamental examples of biology (i.e., bacteria). So I would rather entertain a change of state, rather than a union to manifest electricity. I think it more logical that influence from the relationship of background (counterspace?), to the foreground allows a vibration on some axis that allows manifestation of electricity, the relationship not the union. I know that yin/yang has been pushed through our understanding of everything.

My problem when we start making too many guesses about so many facets of creation, we start dreaming about unicorns.

Which is my problem with the Alexey videos, there is not any historical progression to success. He never proved the meat of his operation, and then boom he has a devices that moves like it was dangled by a string.

Now we're talking about crop circles.

Sorry dudes, no disrespect...death before dishonesty. I'm out of here.

I also take issue with the videos of Alexey, but not discounting them due to elements on the device that I have predicted with totally other start points for the ideas

ideas like "counterspace" seem poorly defined when you first see the idea.
the way I see counterspace is pretty clear.
mater is ultimately made of field forces.
so you can make a field that is not strong enough to make matter appear here, so that would be counterspace,
regular space would be when the field forces are strong enough for the matter to appear to us.
(yes, this means that something like an electron can go to "counterspace", but something like an electric field can not)
a better way to put the entire idea is ask if something is manifested here or not.

when you start taking the ideas that are presented and converting them to how you understand reality (and in ways that actually match logic), then it is way easier to understand.

I also agree with you on the male/female energy of creation,
I think this has its place in how life works.
but when I here it in relation to field forces, I just quietly convert to "polarity".

[Gambeir]

Gambeir,

Thanks for the promenade, for my understanding. I do appreciate it.

You guys make me feel like I walked into the advanced lectures accidentally, and know that I am way above my depth. The thing is there are so many leaps in postulation, that I don't see the breadcrumbs for constructive prediction. I understood your post until the statement about the male/female energy of creation. I guess Dollard doesn't believe in the simplest answer first, which is mitosis. Reproduction is sexless at the most fundamental examples of biology (i.e., bacteria). So I would rather entertain a change of state, rather than a union to manifest electricity. I think it more logical that influence from the relationship of background (counterspace?), to the foreground allows a vibration on some axis that allows manifestation of electricity, the relationship not the union. I know that yin/yang has been pushed through our understanding of everything.

My problem when we start making too many guesses about so many facets of creation, we start dreaming about unicorns.

Which is my problem with the Alexey videos, there is not any historical progression to success. He never proved the meat of his operation, and then boom he has a devices that moves like it was dangled by a string.

Now we're talking about crop circles.

Sorry dudes, no disrespect...death before dishonesty. I'm out of here.

Laughing...it's OK, you're right...you're right...no need to worry about saying what you think. It's more likely that you've stumbled in to an insane asylum than an advanced lecture.

Well the Dollard post might be a little off and I debated about leaving it in that post. Dollard has the idea but more precisely the male and female business is an allegorical way of seeing matter creation. For creation to take place there has to be destruction. In destruction there is creation. It's a concept not widely recognized. The Male is the destructive process of creation. The Female is the birthing of new life/matter creation. Male is inward's and Female is outwards: Implosion and Explosion. Space and Counter Space. Injection & Birth.

So this is a form of seeing fundamental operations of nature which have formed humankind's understanding of how things work. Now of course your observations are spot on and correct, for matter creation and destruction as a male/female form is a humanistic point of view, and there are other ways of seeing spontaneous creation. I'm reminded of the great case of spontaneous life where Michael Faraday came to the rescue of some poor little person, Adrew Crosse a former member of Energetic Forums I believe, and whom presented to the Royal Electrical Society his evidence that life had spontaneously arrived out of his so called electro-crystallization experiments.

Andrew Crosse: Abiogenesis of Acari
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Crosse
Discussion here
Thunderbolts Forum ? View topic - abiogenesis, Acari insects, alchemy and vermin plagues

OK, so now lets just back up a little but I wanted to give you your due as fair and justly seen points of observation.

Now the crop circle isn't just any crop circle: It's one where even someone as novice as myself can see that there is a microwave cyclotron depicted in the image. We know this is probably then showing us something for a number of reasons and is probably not accidental.

Cosmic microwave background is one of these. Another is the suspicion that high frequencies are part of our partly deduced system of Nazi Flying Saucer Technology. A third is that the drawing is showing us a logical approach based on what we already know or suspect about gravity. Now I know this is not all immediately obvious and I will therefore explain why I think this.

Now a planet in space is being bombarded by energies. To replicate the effect is easier to do if you can turn some of the processes inside out. So instead of a sphere being bombarded from outside it's now being bombarded from inside. Instead of an internal rotating magnetic field we now have an external rotating magnetic field. That's what the Barbury Crop Circle is showing us, or something very close to that, and this is fundamentally the same as the Alexey. Only in the Alexey we don't have this happening inside a sphere, nor are there any connecting wave guide tubes which might assist in unknown manner.

*Note: Also note there is an external rotation/gyration of Star's Orbital field Our Solar System resides in. In other words, a rotating magnetic field is part of the Sun's heliosphere.

Finally we have these images and reports where Chris Hardeman built a device using off the shelf material and obtained some results. Hardeman either didn't use a magnetic core and or a rotating magnetic field, or else he didn't report the results, or it was scrubbed, but it's obvious that the circular rings depicted in the center are showing a magnetic field (my opinion).

I'm seeing logical extensions where the parts match other known related information, either by visual evidence, or by patents, and theoretical ideas about gravity and propulsion. We have covered these in such things as the John St. Claire Patents, which almost exactly show this same triangular shape sitting atop a ring, a ring which creates a rotating electro-magnetic field. If you read his patents they are based on totally accepted Einsteinian Physics and describe with mathematical precision the supposed outcome. We can't get any more conventional. So either they work as sold or they don't and which should have some serious implications about physics if they don't work as described.

I put the crop circle back in because the issue with the Alexey is one of retaining energy lost, which is why the crop circle is probably a little improved over the Alexey because it is doing this by enclosing the HV HF field inside sphere's, whereas in the Alexey the HF field is being applied across an open disk, so I think Bugsfly had that right about losing energy. What the Alexey has right that the Hardeman Device didn't have at all is a rotating magentic field. Important since that field should be the source inducing a re-vectoring of the spin states, or in more simple terms, re-vectoring gravity with magnetic force.

[Gambeir]

Right now we have three or more possible explanations. I haven't had the time to go through and break these down in to competing theories but I see there are more than one.
These are logical extensions linking different ideas. The primary problem is that right now these are jumbled up as we stumble forwards: They only look like Unicorns because
we haven't got this sorted out yet.

I do want to also mention Spacecase0's post #734 as an example of what may actually be happening which is little recognized as it could imply or hold answers which are not being seen due to prevailing amounts of ideas and theories.

Also from sinergicus this specifically addresses the Alexey and Crop Circle Hardeman based experiment.
http://www.utahspace.org/special/alzofon.html

[Gambeir]

The place where most everyone started is recounted in this video originally posted again by Sinergicus. I think Mark McCandlish accurately depicted a working machine and describes how it works correctly with the assistance of Harold Putthoff. This is all very conventional Einsteinian Physics. There's not much doubt that this works in my own mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzY06MRzwPE


The next Anti-gravity type is what I might call re-vectored atomic spin states. I'm not convinced that this actually correct but it would fit in with conventional explanations of how things work.
This type might be what we see happening in the Alexey. It' might be what is happening in the Hardeman replication experiments based on the Barbury Crop Circle. This might also be a complex retelling of how to this more simply with a magnetic field revector of gravitational force as told by Ken Wheeler: Actually this is what I really suspect and think that it might be easier than
we even realize and maybe the understanding will manifest itself in due course.

This form of anti-gravity is described in this review.
http://www.utahspace.org/special/alzofon.html

There might be a third form as described by the information Spacecase0
ran in to. Spacecase0's post #734
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post314063

so,
I was wondering around on the web today trying to design something
and ran across something fascinating
it is the article on effective mass (I was looking at the electron )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect...ate_physics%29
these 2 bits are what got my attention


so what if the devices we are looking at change the effective mass at key points in movement in piezoelectric movement ?

You have to understand that there might be several ways to fly. There might be only one way and which is being cloaked behind complexity to keep the reality hidden. After all, for sure no one in authority want's you to have the ability to fly off without buying a plane ticket, passport, and being groped by some tax funded fiend for corporate profiteers. This all goes back to us having to figure it out for our own selves because there is no way ever that you're ever going to be told how this actually works.

The fact that Einstienian Physics can explain and even create a faster than light space ship doesn't mean it's the only way to do it. That's the bottom line and really this is what we seem to also be running in to. Understanding that doesn't serve your masters desires. They need you to believe they have the knowledge, that you can learn it at a pay for profit re-education camp they own and direct, and so really they aren't actually lying but they aren't really giving you the whole truth either.

Meanwhile the search for the real Unicorn goes on.

[ilandtan]

Is this one of the Alexey videos? Because this is an obvious fake. I knew I would see this trick, the exposure slightly lightens at exactly at 1:00.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJCC1Ks4BJ4[/VIDEO]

[Ufopolitics]

Is this one of the Alexey videos? Because this is an obvious fake. I knew I would see this trick, the exposure slightly lightens at exactly at 1:00.

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJCC1Ks4BJ4[/VIDEO]

Hello ilandtan,

Could you elaborate your assumption?

Exposure of what?...of camera?... of string?

I honestly don't see no strings attached friend.

Please, freeze the frames, then show where it reveals the hoax.

Not saying it can't be a hoax though...

Regards

Ufopolitics

[ilandtan]

Let's just look at this video with the knowledge it is fake, and we wanted to prove that it wasn't (first...why would we find that necessary if it was true?).

But because we know it's fake, we have to do the old "pass the levitating subject through a metal hoop..." or in this case a flexible hoop that can easily be taken apart(hahah).

Look at and estimate the size of the hoop before 1:00, now compare the hoop after 1:00, look a little smaller? \/

This gentlemen is an animatronic unicorn.

[spacecase0]

was playing with designs
thinking about reports of UFOs and the magnetic field reported
something like 3T at a hundred foot away...
I have a magnetic coil set to 85 gauss anywhere in the center of it, and it is about 18 inches across. (580 turns at 5.8 amps and the 85 gauss is the measured value )
about a foot away from it I see about 2 gauss
off angle I see about zero

so what kind of a field gets you 3T far away ?
I have already tried about every configuration I can think of to mess with gravity
and it keeps coming back to that any real world examples we see reported use way way more power than any small scale setup I have seen tested up close.

and another thought, following the math here,
if you are in a field that is at least 300T trying to do anything,
how do you even move around ?
example of a much smaller magnetic field and human interaction
https://www.jameco.com/Jameco/worksh...ch-intern.html

jet planes might end up being way more useful even if we do get this to work

[Gambeir]

OK, so you looked at the Chris Hardeman experiment? The Gravity Shielding Experiment from Chris Hardeman

You've also carefully, and repeatedly read this article over, and each time looking for clues while trying to connect information: Now is that correct; and if not, why not?
https://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm

Tetrahedron shaped Black Triangles aren't filled with microwave radiation. It's not like some kind of electro-blimp zipping about. We are pretty sure they do have three balls at each corner. That right there is another clue the Hardeman Experiment was probably the reason for mass panic by the interested helping hands of Klepto-corporatists.

The three ball configuration has been retained as part of a control system, just as aircraft have elevator, rudder, and aileron's, so too would this machine have to have some control systems. Incorporated in to the Skin of the vehicle is the concept behind the the three ball configuration itself, just as an elevator, rudder, and aileron are all themselves also aerodynamic foils like the wing of the aircraft is, and so too here we have the same idea. It's not as obvious because the balls are operating on a similar principle, but the correlation between the Asymmetrical Tetrahedron Pattern of the Triangular Design is not readily visible in the Spherical Shape of the Balls, even though these balls are related through the principle of what they are doing. A little muddy to reason through I know, but I can't say "well ya know the balls are creating a gravity field" because I don't know that, but they are doing something which is directly related to the shape of the entire craft, which is an Asymmetrical Design and that fits in with a re-vectoring of energies, and so though it's not manifestly obvious how the spherical shaped balls are related to the Tetrahedron, the two are nevertheless sharing a commonality in what their end result is.

This means the hull is akin to the motor for propulsion. Then the hull is itself a black material, probably a graphite, it's washed in a gold nano-ball bath which is electroplated to the graphite as a conductor. By happy chance graphite also just so happens to be the substance used for electroplating copper, gold, silver, chrome, and other metals on to non-electrically conductive materials like say for example Baby Shoes. So referring back to previous pages in this thread it is then possible to think that maybe graphite is the reason for the coloration. The analysis of a crashed UFO/Black Triangle in Russian on Hill shows an extremely advanced machine so let's just hope they are our's because if not we are probably in trouble.

" The material of which the fragments were composed did not dissolve in strong acids and organic solvents, even when exposed to high temperatures for prolonged periods of time. One of the mesh fragments was discovered to be composed of scandium, gold, lanthanum, sodium, and samarium. An analysis of another mesh fragment showed gold, silver, and nickel. After that fragment was heated in a vacuum, the analysis no longer showed these elements; however, molybdenum and rhenium were detected."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_611_UFO_incident

Further incidents
"Similar flying balls were detected over the territory of Dalnegorsky, Kavalerovsky District, Olginsky, and Terneysky District of Primorsky Krai in November 1987. One of the balls was noticed above Height 611 illuminating the ground on the peak of the hill. The descriptions of these balls given by witnesses match the descriptions of the UFO that crashed on Height 611 in 1986.

A claim of a UFO landing on Height 611 was also made in 1989."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_611_UFO_incident

As previously mentioned in this thread there are hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of these flying beach balls. There's even one caught on video destroying a space X rocket which was absurdly denied despite overwhelming video proof, and of course destroying pissed off beach balls have a long record of not only being able to destroy at will, but to also freeze and levitate, or tractor beam people, cows, and other objects. It's probably not accidental then that the mass murder machines in the movie "Oblivion" feature pissed of beach balls. Even someone as unlikely as Walter Cronkite had a first hand experience with this sci-fi business of flying saucers: Read This one`~
https://rense.com/general70/crokn.htm


Now I want to point out that just because we think we know everything there is to know, that doesn't actually mean we do know everything there is to know: We might be dealing with another energy which we have not recognized or have little experience in recognizing. You're also keeping in mind Ken Wheeler's re-vectoring of the gravity field with magnets and an electrical current, and you're also thinking about how do you do that because it's not easy. I've been thinking about this ever since I watched Ken holding his little copper flying saucer model and talking about how he's played with it almost every day. You're also thinking about the Magvid, the Alexey, and how these all can relate to each other: Right?

"It can readily be shown that an arrangement of permanent magnets of sufficient field density will emit a string of particles termed: 'monopoles' or virtual photons, which escape their parent field."
https://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm

This same explanation is also called an IPAC in Tornado's. In truth a tornado produces counterflowing mono-polar ionized jet vortex's. They may or may not have both poles but act as if they are one polarity and in the end this what really matters the most. If Permanent Magnets can produce the same effect than that is evidence, in my opinion, of a similar behavior and which would strongly support the idea that magnetic field is a moving field. It is entirely possible that the energies which make up a magnetic field, whatever they may be, are moving so fast that it only appears to be standing still.

[Gambeir]

OK, so now lets think about how the Alexey would work according to Wheeler as a re-vectoring, and as if the magnetic field were in fact a form of a condensed and organized form of energy which is responsible for gravity; in other words a form of a condensed gravity field.


Now look, if you have one electromagnetic field going in a horizontal plane and you want to make it rotate to a vertical plane you've got to oppose the + Positive Charges with Positive Charges and the Negative Charges with Negative Charges. Pretty simple concept right?

Take a look at this problem with the help of visual mechanics and using for example a differential. Ya got two gears turning at 90 degrees to each other. Actually it's kind of surprising that Alexey got the thing to work at all considering the physical complexity. Now someone here should be able to figure out how to do this with solid state. You've got to pulse the DC in order to meet the AC cycle at the correct time so that the charge polarities are meeting and causing a re-vectoring by opposing fields. You have to use AC and DC to keep the Magnetic fields from co-mixing. Don't know how else to put it but it seems quite clear there's a reason AC and DC might work this way.

[Ufopolitics]

Another Antigravity experiment...much simpler than Alexey's

Hey Guys,


Here is another experiment that could be done MUCH easier than Alexey's...

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkNrNFAU4So&index=35&list=WL&t=28s[/VIDEO]


But hey...look at all the similarities with Alexey's...


Please DON'T not miss out the comments...you will laugh like crazy...I did..


Have fun


Ufopolitics

[spacecase0]

Hey Guys,


Here is another experiment that could be done MUCH easier than Alexey's...

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkNrNFAU4So&index=35&list=WL&t=28s[/VIDEO]


But hey...look at all the similarities with Alexey's...


Please DON'T not miss out the comments...you will laugh like crazy...I did..


Have fun


Ufopolitics

I have seen this one years ago,
the phone would not have rang inside the tiny faraday cage.

even if it did, the microwaves out on a digital phone go in pulses, and not even as if it were dangling on a string

this is absolutely a hoax