April 26th, 2014, 01:24 AM
Absolutely fascinating stuff!
The Polarized Vacuum “Onion Drive” Propulsion System | The Stargate Chronicles | By Clark C. McClelland | The Real X-Files
Yes it's about UFO propulsion systems - I don't want to talk about UFO's, I've been doing it most my life. Instead, I have given this link purely about the physics behind it.
Enjoy.
What physics? I see none. It's from a UFO fantasy site (as you've acknowledged).Originally Posted by Chesslonesome
This belongs in the Personal Theories section at best. No physics here, sorry.
I'd call this meaningless gibberish - this isn't physics, it's pseudoscience at best, so this is where I am going to move this thread.
What physics? I see none. It's from a UFO fantasy site (as you've acknowledged).
This belongs in the Personal Theories section at best. No physics here, sorry.
Do you know who Mccelland is? He's an astronaut with many science degree's and many awards. The Onion Drive is his creation. There is actually physics behind it. Here is a physicist who (talking about a different subject) goes onto talk about the Onion drive. He works in propulsion systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glAbRwv65NI
Hanke why are you so quick to throw something away? Like my post yesterday, it was spammed by someone else, but you punish me by throwing my work in the trash, even though you replied to it intelligently?
And you know... the guy in vid I linked you to... he has an eight year bach. degree working in the area of propulsion. So if you don't trust me, or the initial link, you will surely agree he is a legitimate source to basically defend my position there is science here.
Argument by appeals to authority don't cut it in science, Chesslonesome. I agree with Markus that the "explanation" is total gibberish. Evidently you don't understand that the mere use of words from the scientific vocabulary isn't the same as science.
A college degree is not an inoculation against woo. The idea stands or falls on its own. Here, it can't even get off the ground long enough to fall.
Argument by appeals to authority don't cut it in science, Chesslonesome.
Appealing to authority is better than appealing to some layman on a forum, no?
Because I looked at your link and judged it to be pseudoscience. You are free to disagree, but my decision on this stands.
No, they're both useless in science.Argument by appeals to authority don't cut it in science, Chesslonesome.
Appealing to authority is better than appealing to some layman on a forum, no?
Is this your best response? No wonder you have so many problems on every forum you've ever joined. You seem not to subscribe to the scientific method. That's a real problem if you're trying to participate in science-based discussions.
Note that neither Markus nor I appealed to a layman. We made our own independent judgments. You, on the other hand, gave us a CV. What would have been much more persuasive and constructive? Why, an actual demonstration -- you know, using math -- that the central idea was based on science.
So, don't try to shift the burden of proof, and don't shift the blame. You appealed to authority. We didn't. You didn't present any science. We pointed it out.
Why are you complaining?
Maybe the saying, don't judge a book by it's cover, might be applicable?Because I looked at your link and judged it to be pseudoscience. You are free to disagree, but my decision on this stands.
I don't care if someone calls the ''authorative'' card. I will appeal to it if I must to explain, there is science behind it and it was created by a hero of our time.
No, they're both useless in science.Argument by appeals to authority don't cut it in science, Chesslonesome.
Appealing to authority is better than appealing to some layman on a forum, no?
Really?
You see, I tend to disagree. Appealing to authority can be very effective, it can separate the wheat from the chaff. For instance, I'd much prefer someone who has an eight-year bach. degree in astro-propulsion... than say you, who I don't know anything about. If I entered a thread, read something in which an authoratative figure was saying something, I'd most LIKELY read and take in what the professional is saying, not some troll trying to argue back.
This is why you fail. First, appeals to authority are universally recognized by scientists as weak because of the many instances throughout history where an authority was wrong. Second, your argument above continues to exhibit the fallacy of considering only two possibilities -- appeals to authority, or to laymen (including "trolls," which seems to mean "anyone who dares disagree with me"). You continue to ignore the correct alternative, which is to present the science. As long as you continue to ignore the science part of the argument, you will enjoy the harsh criticism that you've experienced here as you have elsewhere.
This is why you fail. First, appeals to authority are universally recognized by scientists as weak because of the many instances throughout history where an authority was wrong.
Right. That's absolutely correct, this is after all, the way science works. People suggest things, others either correct it or approve it. Don't tell me how science works, I know how it works.
If someone says something, and 20 years, 5 years or even a couple of days later, it doesn't matter if an appeal to authority will ''turn out wrong'' in the end. Science is trial by error, we try and get our models to fit reality and they need to be falsifiable.
If a theory has been falsified, some good science is happening.
There is definitely no physics there - I understand every word of it so there cant possibly be any physics in there. And is Clark C McClelland an astronaut? There is no mention of him anywhere on the NASA website and being an ScO doesnt mean you have been into space - looks like he was ground crew and he got fired from NASA after claiming to see 9 foot aliens in the cargo hold of a shuttle.
Sorry, he is an aerospace engineer. If I actually knew someone that worked in this field, they'd probably slam me for using lazy terminology. Trust me, I've been up all night and my attention is somewhat wearing thin.
But yes, he's an aerospace engineer... and if you understood it, that's good. You shouldn't put yourself down like that.
I saw UFO's above our house too. I believe him.
Myself and my family saw three of them above our house, the most strangest thing I ever saw.
And to this day, I know what I saw is in no inventory of our military. Top generals have came forward over the years, the ''woo'' factor has been slowly squeezed out of the subject with officials now coming on record to explain their otherworldly events.
Don't attack what you don't understand. For I have seen them too. They are indeed real. The question is what is driving them.
I'm not putting myself down - I just acknowledge the limitations of my understanding. Whilst I have a theoretical understanding of physics and quantum physics I have no mathematical understanding of either. If there were any real mathematical proofs of the claims in the links I wouldnt understand them.
But I understand delusion perfectly well when I see it and there is nothing in McClellands 'theories' or your assertions that have any basis in reality.
Well, there's your problem.
Science is about critical thinking. "They are indeed real" is not a supported statement. How do you KNOW you didn't make an error? Answer: You don't. Your posts show you to be rather credulous. The most likely explanation is that you saw something that you didn't understand, and then leapt to a conclusion that you were predisposed to accepting. And now you are indulging in mining the internet in search of tidbits that fit into your predetermined framework. When challenged on this obvious bit of daydreaming, you get huffy, make feeble appeals to authority, and compound the error by making even more feeble appeals to the validity of feeble appeals to authority.
That ain't science, that's crackpottery.
It is a drive and there is physics behind it.
if you listen to the propulsion expert in the video I linked, he explains the science behind it. So please, stop trolling.
Science is about critical thinking. "They are indeed real" is not a supported statement. How do you KNOW you didn't make an error? Answer: You don't.
Well actually I know I didn't make an error, myself, four members of my family, and about several houses round the area all witnessed UFO's above our house.
I think that is a good indication that I definitely saw something.
I think in science terms, you could call it a mass sighting. If it had just been me, then sure, you could play the delusional card. But it wasn't.
And it was the strangest unearthly thing I ever saw. You don't HAVE to believe me or course.
Daydreaming?
It happened at night, five members of my family involved and about several houses round the same area. I don't get huffy, I get trolled by people like you who try and make it out it was all in my head.
Well guess what, I won't believe that several families just happened to share the same delusion.
Well, there's your problem.
Sigh.... no the problem is people like you, who continue to dupe people into thinking UFO's don't exist. Well guess what, UFO's have been tracked on radar for about 80-100 years.
Officials (government airforce generals, pilots and all sorts of high ranking) have now came forward admitting the UFO phenomenon is large as it is real. Now, don't come in here and play the wack card when you don't know the first thing about the subject. I have made this subject my life because of our witnessing the UFO's that winter night.
You weren't there, I WAS.
Congratulations. You've officially destroyed any credibility you may have had on this site.Well, there's your problem.
Sigh.... no the problem is people like you, who continue to dupe people into thinking UFO's don't exist. Well guess what, UFO's have been tracked on radar for about 80-100 years.
Officials (government airforce generals, pilots and all sorts of high ranking) have now came forward admitting the UFO phenomenon is large as it is real. Now, don't come in here and play the wack card when you don't know the first thing about the subject. I have made this subject my life because of our witnessing the UFO's that winter night.
You weren't there, I WAS.
Congratulations. You've officially destroyed any credibility you may have had on this site.Well, there's your problem.
Sigh.... no the problem is people like you, who continue to dupe people into thinking UFO's don't exist. Well guess what, UFO's have been tracked on radar for about 80-100 years.
Officials (government airforce generals, pilots and all sorts of high ranking) have now came forward admitting the UFO phenomenon is large as it is real. Now, don't come in here and play the wack card when you don't know the first thing about the subject. I have made this subject my life because of our witnessing the UFO's that winter night.
You weren't there, I WAS.
I hope my credibility can be gauged by the knowledge I share with people not by a stigma surrounding a subject that is ill-recognized here.
Unicorns are also ill-recognized here.
Sharing anecdotes about your spotting of UFOs will not change the fact that there is no significant evidence of such things.
What little you know...
...there is tonnes of evidence, from mass witnesses, physical trace remains (and not talking about crop circles), there is about 100 years trying to track the objects on radar and then intercepting them. Some of these interceptors lost their lives.
Really... you don't know what evidence there is.
Here... I will make a new thread for you....explain what it is you do not know.
"The least improbable explanation is that these things are artificial and controlled. . .my opinion for some time has been that they have an extraterrestrial origin."
-Dr. Maurice Biot, aerodynamicist and mathematical physicist.
Werner Von Braun was a rocket scientist developed Nazi Germany's V2 rocket and later, the American space program.
"We find ourselves faced by powers which are far stronger than we had hitherto assumed, and whose base is at present unknown to us. More I cannot say at present. We are now engaged in entering into closer contact with those powers, and in six or nine months time it may be possible to speak with some precision on the matter." --This comment comes from "News Europa" Jan. 1959 and refers to mysterious events during the re-entry phase of the Juno 2 rocket during a test flight.
"...it is as impossible to confirm them (UFOs) in the present as it will be to deny them in the future." --In a comment to Nasa scientist, Clark McClelland
"What I found [in doing research for the book Project Delta] was compelling evidence to claim that most of these aerial objects far exceeded the terrestrial technology of the era in which they were seen. I was forced to conclude that there is a great likelihood that Earth is being visited by highly advanced aerospace vehicles under highly 'intelligent' control indeed."
-Dr. Richard F. Haines, retired NASA senior research scientist at Ames Research Center and the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science where he worked on the International Space Station.--From the preface of his book, CE-5, 1998.
"I was there at [Project] Bluebook and I know the job they had. They were told not to excite the public, not to rock the boat... Whenever a case happened that they coud explain--which was quite a few--they made a point of that, and let that out to the media. . .Cases that were very difficult to explain, they would jump handsprings to keep the media away from them. They had a job to do, rightfully or wrongfully, to keep the public from getting excited."
-Dr. J. Allen Hynek
"UFO sightings are now so common, the military doesn't have time to worry about them. . .when a UFO appears, they simply ignore it. . .Unconventional targets are ignored because apparently we are only interested in Russian targets, possibly enemy targets. Something that hovers in the air, then shoots off at 5,000 miles per hour, doesn't interest us, because it can't be the enemy. UFOs are picked up by ground and air radar, and they have been photographed by gun camera all along. There are so many UFOs in the sky that the Air Force has had to employ special radar networks to screen them out."
-Lee Katchen, NASA atmospheric physicist in an announcement on June 7, 1968 in which he stated that he believed, based on his examination of 7,000 reports, that UFOs have an extraterrestrial origin.
"The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it woud appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of non-believers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer."
-Robert J. Low, project coordinator of the Colorado University UFO Project
I didn't know Reiku is a UFO nut.
No. Really. There's not.
What little you know...
...there is tonnes of evidence, from mass witnesses, physical trace remains (and not talking about crop circles), there is about 100 years trying to track the objects on radar and then intercepting them. Some of these interceptors lost their lives.
Really... you don't know what evidence there is.
There are anecdotes about people seeing things they can't explain in the sky. How that translates to "aliens" is usually something lost in the details.
It's the next step on the crackpot promotion ladder from "fantasy physicist"...I didn't know Reiku is a UFO nut.
He's got a full head of steam now. He's spamming the place with his UFO stuff.
Yep, I reported that thread as spam/blogging, coupled with the trolling and bullshit hopefully the mods will shut him down. He seems to have been banned from everywhere else, judging by his posts of the last day or two I can see why.
You didn't know? It's almost common knowledge back at sciforums. Kitt was known for saying ''I have to give it to him, he had integrity.''
Concerning my appeal to people on the internet.
Why would you do something like that?
A bit spiteful no?
and big deal... banned from sciforums. That's doesn't make it the whole internet!
In fact, I'm not even discussing this with you.
Because this is a forum, not a place to get public recognition for your UFO book.
Why would you do something like that?
A bit spiteful no?
I made my last thread on UFO's a second ago. It's a subject I don't particularly wish to spend hours and hours debating. I've done this about seven times.
No, I'm just bored of your bullshit. If you want to post crap like this all over the internet f**k off and get a blog like all the other nutjobs.
Because this is a forum, not a place to get public recognition for your UFO book.
Why would you do something like that?
A bit spiteful no?
I didn't post my whole book. If I did, you would know about it. I have taken excerpts for people to read, problem with that?
We try to keep the worst nut cases under control, unlike sciforums, which is wacko central.
I'm not a nutjob. Stop trying to attack me.
I'm just as sane as you. Albeit, the only medical problem I have had surrounds my autism and depression. That is not a reason to call me a nut.
I know. I've seen these posters. They don't do it any favors.
The contents of your posts, however, are a reason to call you a nut.That is not a reason to call me a nut.
Your ignorance on a subject are no reasons to call me a nut.
Yup - thats exactly what its being gauged on.....and found wanting.
I think chapter 4 of my book, explains your behaviour
''In some very intense debates over the years, I see a pattern repeated by sceptics. Some sceptics say there is no evidence for UFO's, I have had to correct them on quite a number of times that there is plenty evidence for UFO's. What the sceptic is looking for, isn't evidence. They are looking for proof. There are unique differences between the two.
Evidence is something you use to try and prove something. If you have enough evidence, then you have enough proof. Question is, is whether we have enough proof that aliens exist? The answer is no, we don't have the smoking gun proof yet that aliens are responsible for some UFO sightings. There is tantalizing evidence to support the claim however.
Often, if a sceptic fails to provide better arguments than the believer, then the sceptic will often resort to name-calling, despite if you offer plenty evidence for them to chew over. You are often called insane, or woo woo for simply thinking that aliens are a possible answer for what is being seen in our skies. Not only are top scientists telling it is probable, but if they haven't visited us yet, then they will eventually. Indeed, Kaku has been known for saying ''it isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when.''
Trust me, it's not ignorance, it's boredom. We've seen posers like you come and go, with your made up nonsense and nutjob fantasies you're nothing special, just another internet wingnut.Your ignorance on a subject are no reasons to call me a nut.
I really really doubt that. All my time in sciforums talking about the UFO-phenomenon, I was the only one there who could talk about it's history including a large avatar of knowledge concerning sightings and UFO events.
I am nothing of the standard you encounter. I am a bona fide investigator of the phenomenon, I don't sit here with a tin foil hat expecting to be taken away.
So you're a fashion conscious wingnut who thinks he's got credibility. There are hundreds like you, all deluded.don't sit here with a tin foil hat expecting to be taken away.
This seems an appropriate time as any to post this video.
I could name several scientists that would land you flat on your back who testify to UFO's. The government has played fools of the public. They created project sign, who was a panel of scientist that decided the ET phenomenon was the likely answer.
These where government scientists for god sake! And here's you... saying ''yeah plenty of them.''
Yes, plenty respectable scientists. The project sign was shut down replaced with Grudge and then blue book, which by the way, was all intended to look like an objective investigation. Dr Hynek even admitted that there sole intention was not to prove UFO's existed, but debunk them instead as to not cause public panic.
When will it sink in?
Then Hynek later admitted once blue book shut down, that he became a believer. If he can, why not you? Too set in your ways?
From ScoobyDoo1's link:
"I don't know what it is. It must be aliens from outer space, visiting from another planet."
If you don't know what it is - that's where your conversation should stop.
This seems an appropriate time as any to post this video.
He's a nut. He doesn't understand because he's never seen it, never experienced it. If someone jumps the gun and says alien, then close the convo.
This guy is basically saying argument from ignorance means we have to know because steeped in ignorance. But who is ignorant here?
He's not an expert in other words. Notice he largely talks about ignorant public, in which case, yes I agree. The public is very ignorant of the FACTS of UFO phenomenon. He seems to lack some pivotal knowledge as well. I dedicate a whole chapter to scientific investigation into UFO's, you should read it.
NO ONE is an expert in UFOs because the very word contains "Unknown". The whole point is that someone can't be an expert in something that cannot be explained. You can cut out every newspaper clipping of every sighting of every weird object in the sky and be able to cite the date and place on command, but you're not an expert.
Yes there is. An expert on UFOlogy studies UFO encounters. He isn't a UFO investigator and he's certainly not got good debunking powers. He was more comedic than making sense.
What a load of rubbish - physics so far doesn't have a single theory, no one knows how gravity works (outside GR), no one questions it is there though OR that we have experts in that field.
When there is more evidence than the silly anecdotes and ludicrous appeals to authority (some scientistsWhen will it sink in?) that you and your ilk base your fantasies on.
When there is more evidence than the silly anecdotes and ludicrous appeals to authority (some scientistsWhen will it sink in?
when did official, declassified documents, official on the record statements of UFO's become... anecdotal? These are first hand experienced military personel and somehow you want us to believe we should question their integrity?
get real. These guys hold the keys to nuclear weaponry. I guess they are all out their minds as well?
if so, we are fucked.
You certainly are...
Why are you attacking me?
I explained why in my book
''In some very intense debates over the years, I see a pattern repeated by sceptics. Some sceptics say there is no evidence for UFO's, I have had to correct them on quite a number of times that there is plenty evidence for UFO's. What the sceptic is looking for, isn't evidence. They are looking for proof. There are unique differences between the two.
Evidence is something you use to try and prove something. If you have enough evidence, then you have enough proof. Question is, is whether we have enough proof that aliens exist? The answer is no, we don't have the smoking gun proof yet that aliens are responsible for some UFO sightings. There is tantalizing evidence to support the claim however.
Often, if a sceptic fails to provide better arguments than the believer, then the sceptic will often resort to name-calling, despite if you offer plenty evidence for them to chew over. You are often called insane, or woo woo for simply thinking that aliens are a possible answer for what is being seen in our skies. Not only are top scientists telling it is probable, but if they haven't visited us yet, then they will eventually. Indeed, Kaku has been known for saying ''it isn't a matter of if, it is a matter of when.''
And so this is what you are doing. You don't have these declassified documents on your hands, you don't have the same level of quality evidence, so you resort to attacking the person not the statement.
Repeating claims and arguments from authority don't magically make them TRUE. Also if you want to list parts of you bullshit book on the internet get a blog and stop spamming here.
Declassified, untampered, legal documents of interceptions of UFO's are not appeal to authority. They are documented military FACT.
Do these documented facts mention"aliens" or is that your extrapolation?
No they tell us a technology is being used that appears to not fit anything we have. If you actually took the time to read some of these documented cases, you wouldn't be so ignorant about them.
Go on, dare yourself to learn something. Read it.
Some memo's may use the word alien. One I remember was from the FBI which used the word ''alien bodies.''
Guy Hottel memo, that is what it was called. Some said it was Roswell it talks about, instead it is in relation to someone else (who I won't name yet because I haven't got a full evidence for that).
FBI — UFOs and the Guy Hottel Memo
Earlier military memo's clearly state UFO's was of a great interest to the security of USA and that they are real. Memo after memo reconfirms the same thing. That UFO's are pervading the skies and identification of them seems... either a mystery or a secret or both.
They aren't anecdotal. They are hearsay.
Right, so because there us something you can't explain it HAS to be advanced tech
Notice on the page it says
Third, as noted in an earlier story, the FBI has only occasionally been involved in investigating reports of UFOs and extraterrestrials.
This is the FBI saying this and they are lying. Thousands and thousands of documents flooded out of their vaults when freedom act came in. They don't occasionally investigate them, they've done it prevalently.
You're a master at misrepresenting people.
These guys are experienced military pilots and generals, if they say the technology is foreign and advanced, if anyone should know, they will.
They aren't anecdotal. They are hearsay.
So an entire Platoon in Rendelsham forest, just made their story up using hearsay right?
An entire base in mexico with orders to shoot down a target which had an entire base in alarm... is just hearsay?
Pathetic, next.
G'night.
Good night.
Denial, dismissal, insult.
And you wonder why no one will "debate" with you.
Denial, dismissal, insult.
And you wonder why no one will "debate" with you.
The DOD report of the case is on the net, and you say I am in denial?
I think you need to open the window and get some fresh air. You don't make any logical sense.
My window IS open, but for some reason this thread still smells like bullsh*t.
Which is odd... because you admitted in the other thread we don't have this technology. If we don't have this technology, who are flying these things then?
then open the google bar and search for the DOD report if you don't believe me... or I could just get it for you...
As I said before, "I don't know".
I like how they immediately call an UNIDENTIFIED flying object a "vehicle".... Not really unidentified anymore, is it?
I don't know why you think this report (which is someone ELSE'S eyewitness testimony) is somehow more valid than yours.
This is what Freidman says, no longer are UFO's really unidentified, because they are identified as Saucers. Hence why he used the word Saucers in his most recent book, rather than UFO.
I suggest you look up what hearsay is.So an entire Platoon in Rendelsham forest, just made their story up using hearsay right?They aren't anecdotal. They are hearsay.
It is nothing to do with making up stories.
Even though not a single one has actually been identified as a saucer? That's bold.
This is what Freidman says, no longer are UFO's really unidentified, because they are identified as Saucers. Hence why he used the word Saucers in his most recent book, rather than UFO.
To me the definition of an object is less important than worrying about it's intentions. If there is an object that penetrates air defense, this is a matter of security either way.
This is what Freidman says, no longer are UFO's really unidentified, because they are identified as Saucers. Hence why he used the word Saucers in his most recent book, rather than UFO.
Even though not a single one has actually been identified as a saucer? That's bold.
Sure they have. People have identified saucers all over the world, photographs have been taken (not talking about the faked ones by Adamski). Not all UFO's are saucers, but craft have been identified as saucers.
Bye bye goal posts.
You do know there are genuine stills of saucer shaped craft which have stood the test of time?
This means being analyzed for being faked.
No. I am not aware of photographs of confirmed alien vessels. I can only imagine this would have caused quite a stir.
One photograph I myself and all other ufologists would love to get their hands on is the pitlockry ufo photo. Where that is, is a mystery, including the people who filed the report.
| « Origin of oxygen in earth's atmosphere | FREE ENERGY MACHINES Pedulums and Magnets » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
119Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
