The site UAP Theory has put forward a (very) lengthy examination of how the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon observed by so many people from Top Gun pilots to bus drivers manage to do things that, frankly, shouldn’t be possible. Lue Elizondo has referred to them as some of the five (now six) observables. But is there one sweeping theory that could account for all of them? UAP Theory thinks they have the answer and a plausible scientific analysis to back it up.
If you click through on the link above you can read the entire thing, but be prepared to put your thinking cap on. As I already mentioned, it’s a very lengthy piece that’s very heavy on the science. If you don’t hold advanced degrees in physics and quantum mechanics (for full disclosure, I have neither) it may prove daunting, but the authors do a salable job of trying to present it in a way that’s digestible by the layman.
The mind-bending capabilities of at least some UAP that have been observed (more on that in a bit) fall into a few categories. These include incomprehensible acceleration, non-ballistic motion (e.g. right-angle turns), transmedium travel, turning invisible, changing shape, and the ability to “fly” without any visible flight surfaces, rotors, exhaust ports, or anything else we typically view as requirements for producing lift.
The UAP don’t actually experience any sort of acceleration nor the effects of inertia.
To accomplish all of this, the authors posit that the UAP must have an “engine” (for lack of a better term) capable of harnessing quantum gravity to create local distortions in the spacetime surrounding them to produce geodesics along which they move acceleration-free. In other words, the UAP don’t actually experience any sort of acceleration nor the effects of inertia. They are actually “falling” through distortions in space-time, avoiding all of the messiness of gravity and the friction associated with blasting through water or air.
This is somewhat different from other theories that have been offered. Some have suggested that UAP are able to engage in a form of “quantum tunneling,” allowing them to go from point A to point B instantaneously without all the mucking about of passing through all of the points in between. This concept is something different.
To make their point, the authors walk through a couple of the best videos of UAP currently available. One is the incredible footage from the 2013 sighting at Rafael Hernández International Airport in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. The other is one of the FLIR videos from the 2004 Nimitz encounter. On display are most of the observables I mentioned above.
The proposed space-time warping engine would, among other things, produce gravitational lensing, bending the light around the objects and leading to visual observations suggesting they were changing shape or even “cloaking” to become invisible. The same applies for the craft being able to go from the air into the water and back again without losing speed or creating a splash. In the air, it might explain the lack of a sonic boom when they achieve incredible speeds and seemingly instantaneous acceleration.
Speaking strictly as a layman, there are still some questions remaining that I will attempt to pose for the authors and hopefully follow up on here at some point. One of the first is the issue of gravitational lensing. We know that this is a real effect that’s regularly observed by astronomers. But it’s generally caused by galaxies and black holes or, to a lesser degree, at least stars. If there were something the size of a bus causing gravitation lensing from a few hundred yards away, wouldn’t the object be causing a lot more disruption? Perhaps not if the hypothetical “engine” can localize the effect in some manner we can’t imagine.
Another question, at least for me, arises from the fact that the “cloaking” allowed by lensing clearly stops at some point, otherwise we wouldn’t have the videos referenced above. Once you turn off the space-time distortion effect, would you not also lose your source of “propulsion” (i.e. falling through the distortion) and succumb to the influence of gravity, having no other means of producing lift?
Once you turn off the space-time distortion effect, would you not also lose your source of “propulsion” and succumb to the influence of gravity?
And finally, some of the reported UAP sightings demonstrate these observables, but not all. The notorious orbs and “tic-tacs” do, but many other shapes and sizes of craft are regularly reported. This explanation would not, for example, account for the performance of the vehicle reported in 1964 by Lonnie Zamora. Are we to assume that all of the historical sightings not displaying the capabilities under discussion were all hoaxes or misidentifications? Or are there perhaps multiple sources for UAPs that don’t all operate with this type of space-time disrupting technology?
It’s all fascinating and the explanations offered are, I fully admit, both compelling and persuasive. But at the end of the day, this remains yet another theory, albeit an initially compelling one. Until we actually get our hands on one and start trying to pick apart the technology, we’re still left with a plethora of questions and a paucity of answers.