On 5/24/ Jones Beene said “there is no valid reason to deny that what we may denote s a "UFO" event is in fact both real but also completely non-physical in our 3-space" I agree and would include Lorentzian navigation under that moniker since it dispels arguments over impossible speeds, changes in vector, lack of sonic booms and spotty radar returns. It also would align with methods like Navy engineer Paris proposed in his patents, the lethal G forces and seemingly impossible displacement of tic tacs are actually indications of Lorentzian effect but not based on near C velocity – a space craft with a field that shields it from normal spacetime can experience time faster than we on a relatively stationary planet experience it, like we perceive the near C paradox twin as being in stasis so would an observer inside one of these Paris fields see his own twin on earth as in stasis. The difference is that the Paris field doesn’t have to fight for a significant trig portion of C but has the much easier task of resisting the flow of VP thru a small enclosure of 3 space, and navigation could be as simple as shaping that resistance to VP flow like a sail – always forward on time axis but perpendicular to 3 space.
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 9:14 AM To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: Dave Beaty Re: [Vo]:ufo report to be coming out in a month Coincidentally - this turned up in the morning's news feed... https://getpocket.com/explore/item/when-lab-experiments-carry-theological-implications Looking beyond so-called 'common sense' and/or 'scientific proof' - in the broader debate over the reality of ET phenomena - there is no valid reason to deny that what we may denote s a "UFO" event is in fact both real but also completely non-physical in our 3-space ... which echoes an earlier observation in this thread.
