Did Steven Greer fake a UFO with flares?

So basically this witness testimony inadvertently once more confirms what Col. Corzo was saying that "electromagnetic weapons" can bring UFO down. Those who know a little bit more physics than Col. Corzo does, would know that there is no such a thing as an "electromagnetic weapon"
Yes there is - a laser is one example. And EMP weapon would be another. But there are plenty of other reasonsw to conclude that Corso was hoaxing the public with his crazy story.

Because UFOs create warp drives by pumping UFO's hulls with EM waves, tracking radar's beam creates phase shift or 'noise' that throws UFO's original EM field out of balance.
That sounds plausible, but it's still a Hail Mary. Until we can produce significant gravitational field effects technologically, we won't actually know how it's done.

B
So, here we have a triple lineup of tracking radar beam shooting UFOs: Col Corzo + Sailor witness + Dr. Greer.
Col. Corso's entire testimony should be dismissed for both a lack of supporting evidence, as well as an abundance of contrary evidence (the well-known history of the materials that he claimed to be reverse-engineered from recovered alien technology, for example). And Steven Greer is about as credible as the town drunk - the "Mothra" debacle was particularly hilarious: Steven Greer

The fact that it is possible to shoot down UFOs with strong radar beams gives us all-important quantitative information.
When did that become a fact? The radar hypothesis is only that - a hypothesis.

The EM field that UFOs pump into their own hulls to create warp drives is on the same order of magnitude as our own radar beams. That strongly contributes to the idea that UFOs can be man-made since energy levels are quite manageable by ourselves.
You're piling one supposition upon another, to arrive at a dubious conclusion.

Obviously, the caveat is that we would need to be able to make the very special metamaterial for the hull.
That's a big caveat. We still don't even have a viable theoretical model for producing a material with gravitational field propulsion capabilities, and such a material could be far beyond terrestrial manufacturing capabilities. We just don't know either way.

Whole UFO hull pumped with EM energy more and more "smells" of NMR resonance.
I'm inclined to agree, but remain open-minded. It seems to me that the technology of AAVs could involve some method of manipulating the nuclear strong force in some manner, perhaps via some kind of quasiparticle that allows coupling between EM or acoustical waves or both, because the kinds of energy scales and forces required to produce GR effects are closer to the kinds of energies and forces that we find in nuclear physics than they are with any other physics that we know about.

View attachment 12395
1981 Tepoztlan in Mexico by Carlos Diaz

I know that you must be sick of me posting this same UFO photo by Carlos Diaz again and again, but that is a very rare example of how the UFO hull is pumped by monochromatic laser light to create warp drive. The whole series of photos and videos was analyzed by a university in US and they concluded that light is monochromatic. Monochromatic means one and only one precise frequency.
That makes no sense to me because I'm seeing a range of colors from yellow to orange to red in those photos.

And it seems clear that Carlos Diaz hoaxed those photos and his contact stories, just as Billy Meier did. So I give zero credence to any of his "evidence."

View attachment 12396
from paper ... https://indico.ict.inaf.it/event/751/contributions/5483/attachments/2655/5207/BobrickTorino2019.pdf

And this image above is what our own scientists, specialists in GR, think is an ideal shape for warp drive. For all practical purposes, our own scientists had solved GR only to find a solution that looks like UFO.
That's interesting stuff. I'll have to read that paper. As I understand it though, this concept still requires some negative energy in order to function, so I'm not yet convinced that this approach to gravitational field propulsion is physically realizable. If there's no such thing as negative energy, then it doesn't make much difference if you need 100 metric tons of it, or two grams of it.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
It's just a hypothesis where both our own physics and statistical data from UFO witnesses blend over.

That sounds plausible, but it's still a Hail Mary. Until we can produce significant gravitational field effects technologically, we won't actually know how it's done.

Not really true.

Whether something is engineerable at a given moment in history is not proof. Or put it another way, it is not proof for business people (who are overpaid unskilled laborers, anyway), but it is proof for scientists. All the proof is in maths. Maths is all that is needed. I learned that when I got an engineering degree. The only rock-solid knowledge that we have are the lows of nature, described by math formulas.

When Isaak Newton, in 1687, published his theory of gravitation, that was it, that was all that was needed to prove that it is possible to put a communication satellite into orbit. The fact that GDP was too low to employ 1/2 million people (that many worked on the Apolo program) to engineer rockets is irrelevant. NASA moves satellites all across the Solar system using nothing but Newton's math from 1687.

Col. Corso's entire testimony should be dismissed for both a lack of supporting evidence, as well as an abundance of contrary evidence (the well-known history of the materials that he claimed to be reverse-engineered from recovered alien technology, for example).

Not true at all.

Col. Corso was not a scientist. He was a spy. He was a people's man. He just lacked the vocabulary and mindset to explain things as scientists would. He did oversell the idea that he distributed the alien tech., but that could easily just be just his own personal impression of his own work that he was really doing with best intentions. Of course, scientists would laugh behind his back. At the end of the day, he worked for a government and governments have a loose grip on reality. In no way that invalidates his claim that while he was commander of AA missile station in West Germany a UFO was shot down with tracking radar's beam and that UFO fell in a British sector, where it was picked up and given to the US.

And Col. Corso's radar beam shootdowns strongly correlate with the two papers you quoted about using EM to reduce mass. So again, there is a crossover from science and from witness testimonies.

When did that become a fact? The radar hypothesis is only that - a hypothesis.

It is a standard practice that when data is of low-quality one uses statistics. It is not a fact yet, but the evidence is slowly growing as the number of cases that are confirming is increasing. The main thing is that that is what science is suggesting.

And it seems clear that Carlos Diaz hoaxed those photos and his contact stories, just as Billy Meier did. So I give zero credence to any of his "evidence."

Yeah, just another non-specialist skeptic making a mental double somersault in order to prove he's supposedly level-headed. While he's not even familiar with GR, in the first place. If one isn't familiar with GR he has nothing to say about UFOs. That's why your and @whitedavid 's opinions matter as far as they go.

Carlos Dias' photos were examined by both a Holywood special effects guy and one US university and both of them found no signs of tampering. As well the sheer amount of videos and photos he made and their complexity make it impossible to tamper with back in 1981. There is no way on Earth, even today, for a humble village photographer to produce these monochromatic colors across the whole surface of an object back in back in 1981 and without CGI. Not to mention reflections on the railings and ground etc. And even less would a village photographer be aware of the special physics of UFOs and cutting edge scientific papers published 20 years later.
 
Last edited:
Not really true.

Whether something is engineerable at a given moment in history is not proof. Or put it another way, it is not proof for business people (who are overpaid unskilled laborers, anyway), but it is proof for scientists. All the proof is in maths. Maths is all that is needed.
False.

It's easy to put a negative sign in front of the mass term - but that doesn't mean that negative matter actually exists. And the Alcubierre metric doesn't work without it. Likewise, it's easy to put a negative sign in front of a spatial term, but that doesn't mean that there's any such thing as a negative distance between two points.

There are all kinds of imaginary things that you can do with math that aren't physically realizable. So no, math is insufficient. The math has to describe something that's real in order for it to be physically meaningful.

So while the Alcubierre metric approach to gravitational field propulsion is a neat idea - and the first formal concept in GR field propulsion, it may well be unachievable in reality. UFOs may employ an entirely different form of GR field propulsion. We know of two other completely different concepts already, and I'm confident that more will be discovered in the future. And when we discover a concept which doesn't require a negative mass component in order to achieve superluminal transit times, then we'll probably have arrived at the correct model, imo.

Not true at all.

Col. Corso was not a scientist. He was a spy. He was a people's man. He just lacked the vocabulary and mindset to explain things as scientists would. He did oversell the idea that he distributed the alien tech., but that could easily just be just his own personal impression of his own work that he was really doing with best intentions. Of course, scientists would laugh behind his back. At the end of the day, he worked for a government and governments have a loose grip on reality. In no way that invalidates his claim that while he was commander of AA missile station in West Germany a UFO was shot down with tracking radar's beam and that UFO fell in a British sector, where it was picked up and given to the US.
Col. Corso's book, The Day After Roswell, is a hoax fraught with falsehoods. So your whole argument about downing UFOs with tracking radars is built on quicksand.

And Col. Corso's radar beam shootdowns strongly correlate with the two papers you quoted about using EM to reduce mass.
Or they don't correlate at all and you're imagining a connection that doesn't actually exist. You draw connections that you want to be real - that's confirmation bias. People fool themselves into seeing connections like this all of the time.

Radar signals are the most powerful EM emissions produced on the Earth, aside from nuclear blast EMPs, and it's easy to pinpoint their sources and ranges and frequency bands from space. You're seriously suggesting that an alien race with the sublimely advanced tech to traverse interstellar distances at superluminal velocities would fly in front of a radar beam that would easily drop their craft out of the sky, like some oblivious country bumpkin stepping in front of a speeding train. I think that's preposterous.

It is a standard practice that when data is of low-quality one uses statistics. It is not a fact yet, but the evidence is slowly growing as the number of cases that are confirming is increasing. The main thing is that that is what science is suggesting.
Science also says "garbage in, garbage out." Building arguments on Corso's fake stories and a rash of reports which may be entirely or at least largely fraudulent is a sure way to reach false conclusions.

And this radar theory makes no sense in the credible cases that we do have, like the Tic-Tac encounters. Those objects flew right past our Navy carriers and the high-power radar systems aboard the USS Princeton, and none of them dropped out of the sky, or appeared to be affected in any way. In fact, they jammed the on-board radar systems of the jet interceptors at will.

Similarly we see that the high-power radar systems aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt had no effect on the UFO that buzzed their ship on Oct. 2, 1962, and on other occasions as well. We also have an abundance of reported UFO incidents involving radar tracking near military installations and near civilian airports with no indication of operational interference by the radar systems. And against all of these incidents and all of these radar operator witnesses, you've chosen to believe the book of a known liar, Col. Corso. That's the worst kind of cherry-picking.

Yeah, just another non-specialist skeptic making a mental double somersault in order to prove he's supposedly level-headed.
If you'd rather believe that Carlos Diaz was given a camera tripod by his incorporeal alien friends aboard a "plasma ship," then that's fine with me. Just don't expect others to fall for a story like that.

Carlos Dias' photos were examined by both a Holywood special effects guy and one US university and both of them found no signs of tampering. As well the sheer amount of videos and photos he made and their complexity make it impossible to tamper with back in 1981. There is no way on Earth, even today, for a humble village photographer to produce these monochromatic colors across the whole surface of an object back in back in 1981 and without CGI. Not to mention reflections on the railings and ground etc. And even less would a village photographer be aware of the special physics of UFOs and cutting edge scientific papers published 20 years later.
And Hollywood special FX master Stan Winston saw no evidence of fraud in the Alien Autopsy video, which was later revealed to be a fraud. And they had a coroner who was fooled by it too. And Billy Meier's photos were found to be genuine by academics and professional photo analysts.

Because faked photos aren't always "tampered with" photos. That faked Belgian triangle photo is another example - it's a real untampered with photo, and it fooled everyone. Because it was a genuine photo of a fake UFO close to the camera, not a real UFO at a distance. That's what the Diaz photos look like to me - photos and video of a small translucent model with lights inside.

Your confirmation bias is the only link between Diaz's "evidence" and contemporary physics. There's no actual empirical link - you're seeing a link because you want there to be a link. And like I said before, those fake UFOs aren't monochromatic - they're a whole range of yellow, orange and red colors, similar to a Japanese lantern. And probably made with similar materials actually.
 

Standingstones

Celestial
One small point about Corso. On the cover of “The Day After Roswell”, Corso is listed as being a full bird Colonel. In fact he was a Lt. Colonel. Either Corso or the publisher promoted him.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Skeptics do fact skipping all the time. Like when that Mike guy skipped the whole 4-th gimbal in Tick Tak Toe video and professional FLIR engineer corrected him.

We know of two other completely different concepts already, and I'm confident that more will be discovered in the future.

Interesting. What are the two other concepts? You have a link?

Similarly we see that the high-power radar systems aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt had no effect on the UFO that buzzed their ship on Oct. 2, 1962, and on other occasions as well. We also have an abundance of reported UFO incidents involving radar tracking near military installations and near civilian airports with no indication of operational interference by the radar systems. And against all of these incidents and all of these radar operator witnesses, you've chosen to believe the book of a known liar, Col. Corso. That's the worst kind of cherry-picking.

The above link only links to a front page of the site, not to an article or video? What are they even talking about.

From my recollection, UFO was painted only by scanning radar from the carrier from 200 miles distance, not locked by tracking radar from say 30 to 40 miles. That's a huge difference, we are talking at least about 100 to 1000 times stronger beam between scanning and tracking radar, because the former's beam is very wide 30º to 60º and the latter's beam is narrow and focused, probably only about 1º to 3º. Tracking radar is only used to aid missiles after launch, so illumination needs to be much stronger because the radar receiver in the missile is very small by design. Ok, I can't be bothered to calculate all that, these are just ballpark figures.

Argument about advanced civilization avoiding radars etc. is very broad and loose. If these alien guys were so smart then they would avoid humans all the time and there would be no database filled with 200,000 witness testimonials. It's obvious that aliens are sloppy like us and are constantly surprised. Radar can be turned on and off at will so incoming aliens can not have an advance idea of where radars are located and how to avoid them.

If you'd rather believe that Carlos Diaz was given a camera tripod by his incorporeal alien friends aboard a "plasma ship," then that's fine with me. Just don't expect others to fall for a story like that.

What do you mean by that? Even back in 1981, one can buy a cheap camera tripod for $10-20. Why would Diaz need to get a tripod from aliens, when he can just buy it in a photo shop in a nearby city? Most photos were taken during the night and in one of his videos, one can see a distinct tripod shake.

Diaz's photos and videos are not fakes, by long shot. Billy Mayer was hanging self-made saucers on a thin string and then making videos. But thing with Diaz is in the luminous material that covered the craft. According to your opinion, how did he create that fluorescent material that craft was made from and then stretch it over 7 m ( 20 ft ) wide object? Diaz would need not just to suspend the model of UFO on a string, but as well to supply electricity to it to light it up from inside like a lampshade.

eng.ufo.case__1981 Tepoztlan in Mexico by Carlos Diaz__Parking Lot at Night III.jpg
The actual image Diaz took at night in 1981.
upload_2020-11-27_8-41-8.png
Daylight photo of the location from which Diaz made his photo.

It's clear from these two images above that Diaz's UFO was about 7 m ( 20 ft ) wide and from the perspective of the photo, it was a real large object, not some foot-wide model. Second thing, the amount of light the object was emitting was blindingly bright at least because it can be clearly seen that it caused the orange reflection off the parking lot's asphalt surface, which is by its nature not very reflective. That orange reflection off the asphalt is impossible to create in Billy Mayer's kind of setup. That setup would be only possible on a Hollywood movie type of budget.

upload_2020-11-27_8-50-22.png
Actual night shot back from 1981.

upload_2020-11-27_8-50-45.png
on location reconstruction with the exact camera and tripod on the same spot from which night shot was done.

Proof that Diaz's photos are genuine is that UFO was clearly behind the tree, not in front like in for example Adamsky's photos. In order for Diaz to take the above photo, he would need a crane almost 100 m (300ft) long. He even zooms in and out in the video. Researchers even identified the tree in the question and the exact spot where his camera tripod was and the perspective matches 100%.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. What are the two other concepts? You have a link?
1.) Swimming in spacetime.

This is a brilliant concept that has gone almost completely unnoticed in the press. Dr. Jack Wisdom at MIT published a paper about it in 2002. His concept exploits existing gravitational field gradients and a changing center of mass to produce reactionless propulsion in any direction within a gravitational field, and it requires no negative mass/energy. Here's a link to the paper: http://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www/swimming.pdf

2.) Negative Matter Propulsion.

Robert L. Forward should've gotten credit for publishing the first theoretically viable concept in gravitational field propulsion back in 1990, when he published this paper about it: http://ayuba.fr/pdf/forward1990.pdf

But he didn't solve the full general relativistic equations for the idea, so it was ignored by the science press. It is however a perfectly viable concept, but it suffers the same problem as the Alcubierre metric: the prerequisite for negative mass/energy, which may not exist in reality.

The above link only links to a front page of the site, not to an article or video?
If you're using an ad blocker, it might be preventing the video at that link from loading. Here's a low-rez version of the same video clip about that well-known case in ufology - one of hundreds involving radar tracking that appeared to have no effect at all on UFO flight capabilities:

What do you mean by that? Even back in 1981 one can buy a cheap camera tripod for $10-20.
I guess you didn't look at the link that I cited (I strive to provide the evidence that supports my viewpoints on a point-by-point basis, but sadly few people ever bother to look at it).

Carlos Diaz said that his alien friends lent him a tripod to use, to take footage inside of their "plasma ship" (which he said can't be entered in physical form...so how did he hold a physical camera in there?). You can read about it here: Hoax? Carlos Diaz' Dubious 'Alien Contact' Experiences

And don't you find it suspicious that the "plasma ships" Diaz claims to be photographing, look nothing like any UFO that anyone else has ever described? And that every "plasma ship" that he photographs looks the same? And that his photos and films look very suspiciously like a model hanging from a string? Again and again we've seen amateur photographers cash in on the UFO subject by hoaxing evidence - in my opinion that's very clearly the case with Carlos Diaz, just as it is with Billy Meier.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
And that his photos and films look very suspiciously like a model hanging from a string?

It takes me usually about 1 hour to write a post, so maybe you didn't read the fully completed version of the post. It's finished now. I wasn't expecting anybody to be awake over there in US at this early hour.

Photos in the previous post clearly prove that we are talking about 7 m ( 20 ft ) wide object, not a one-foot model. In the night photo object is behind the bushes, with a huge orange reflection from the tarmac. That would require Diaz to stretch a canvas over 7 m ( 20 ft ) frame that would be hanged from a crane and he would need to bring in electricity to light the whole thing from inside. Mind-boggling setup.

I do insist that this fact here can't be skipped over: In the finished post, I describe how the difference between scanning radar beam and tracking radar beam can be in a ballpark of 100 to 1,000 times stronger. In other words, the scanning beam from 200 miles would be too weak to bring UFO down, while the tracking beam from 20-40 miles can boil water in a pan. When Col. Corso talked about it he specifically mentioned that UFO was brought down by a pencil-thin tracking beam. So scanning and tracking beams are two extremely different beasts.
 
Last edited:

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
OK, thanks for the video link. I got US proxy and watched the video.

It's clear now, those sailors talk about scanning radars. Tracking radars are only engaged when a missile launch command is issued. These guys were on the station just as observers to report unusual events. Missile launch would require the presence of a commanding officer, which was never mentioned, at least at a moment of the observation. The commanding officer turns up in the story only few hours later to tell the radar operator to delete the entry into the logbook.

For a missile to be launched (and tracking radar to be turned on) in the middle of the night when most crew is asleep and stations are only manned by a few sentries, most likely ship's captain would need to be woken up and brought to the command room. One can't start a war with a sleeping crew. I doubt that in a peace time a low ranking radar room officer, on a night duty, would be allowed to launch missile in the middle of the night.

The difference is quantitative, not qualitative. EM illumination on the surface of the target would be between 100 to 1,000 times stronger with tracking radar than with scanning radar. It simply means that scanning radar was too weak to harm the UFO.

And again, it's the case of non-expert skeptic's slip, where skeptic is not fully familiar or aware of all the facts. Like when that Mike guy did, otherwise perfectly rational presentation, but missed the 4th servo on the gimbal. And that "one gimbal too far" than brought down all of his work.

I hope that this weak radar argument wouldn't be brought up again. We wasted time on that before. There are deliberately weak and strong radar beams.
- - - - - - - -
What I am trying to say we all have weak points in our knowledge. You risk throwing the baby out with water and missing on perfectly practical hypothesis. Just google "tracking radar", "TWS", "track while scan", "radar lock", "SAM radars", "Surface to Air radar", etc. These are all terms related to how military radars are used.
The whole of this UFOs are Warp Drives hypothesis is reinforced from multiple aspects of physics:

1) UFOs fly along the cylindrical axis, like warp drives +

2) UFOs bend beams of light (at least a few orders of magnitude more than thermal inversions)
+

3) monochromatic laser-like light can manage NMR of atomic nuclei
+

4) when UFOs are active there is a bleed off gravitation field near the hull, same as with warps
.​

A cross-confirmed view is always closer to the truth than just one angle view. If multiple physical aspects cross-correlate each other then that's a very strong sign.
- - - - - - - -
1.) Swimming in spacetime.

This is a brilliant concept that has gone almost completely unnoticed in the press. Dr. Jack Wisdom at MIT published a paper about it in 2002. His concept exploits existing gravitational field gradients and a changing center of mass to produce reactionless propulsion in any direction within a gravitational field, and it requires no negative mass/energy. Here's a link to the paper: http://web.mit.edu/wisdom/www/swimming.pdf

2.) Negative Matter Propulsion.

Robert L. Forward should've gotten credit for publishing the first theoretically viable concept in gravitational field propulsion back in 1990, when he published this paper about it: http://ayuba.fr/pdf/forward1990.pdf

These are all valid options. But I've shown before that not just a large number of UFO witnesses report that UFOs move along the cylindrical axis of symmetry, but there is even a large number of photographs and drawings of UFOs moving along the cylindrical axis. And it is typical for the warp drive GR solution that the warp drive will move along the cylindrical axis. So, as far as UFOs go, warp drive is more supported with a trend in the witness testimonials. Please check the composite image below.

upload_2020-11-27_10-51-0.png

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
@Thomas R. Morrison ... Check this post #26 where I pulled out some physics papers that prove that time doesn't exist in Quantum Mechanics. Physicists say that time is macroscopic/classical phenomenon.
 
Last edited:

Todd Feinman

Show us the satellite pics...
Very interesting! They do indeed often seem to travel in that orientation. And, sometimes it seems multiple objects are entrained and follow a precise linear movement.. Sometimes there is a pendulum-like movement --it's as if they are like spiders on gravity webs / lines sometimes.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 
Top