Did Tesla Create UFOs?

Jozen-Bo, you are funny

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where do you come from??

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No I'm not. It was Tesla himself who said it. Not in so many words, although that's one possible description, another would be a string of "pellets" i.e. linear not a spread.
Tesla's particles were "droplets" of metal, NOT sub-atomic particles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can a "ray" or "beam" consist of metallic particles accept on a molecular level?

OK, in the midst of wondering about what you have brought to light here, I went and did a minuscule amount of research on Tesla's technology (which he himself claims to have built a scale model of and demonstrated said model to complete operational standards) The metallic particles to which you refer were actually microscopic droplets of mercury or as some of his later research shows, microscopic particles of tungsten. These were aligned in single particle width (just as you said) in a focused beam of ionized air and were reported to be effectively destructive at a distance of 300 miles.

A tiny bit of research also concludes (but certainly not places into official acceptance) the fact that Tesla invented the first ruby laser and most assuredly was the basis for the inventive precursor to ionic and basic upper atmospheres derived high frequency manipulation. By the account of many sources, Tesla most assuredly was the inventor of the "wheel" that proceeded particle beam defense research, and indeed Bernard Eastlund's H.A.A.R.P./Poker Flats r&d.

They (the few sources at this point that I have read) say that Eastlund's theories and subsequent proofs may in fact render a great deal of Einstein's theories obsolete. We will see. The sad thing is that presently most of his findings or working proofs are kept classified because of the military nature of his former work. Occult science in action I guess.

I am only now beginning to develop an admiration for a new type (for me I'm saying) of personal "hero". Via this new appreciation, I have added depth to a level of understanding that the vein human being that I can be has long taken for granted. The true distance between the nature of what is Science and Empirical Acceptance is unfathomable. Thoughts like these fro me are both great and exceedingly humbling. It seems that if the truth could be likened to buried treasure, I could dig on the spot on which I stand for eternity.

I think the latest most admirable quote to me, albeit one that could be easily dismissed as arrogant, eccentric and even delusional, was made by Tesla when he stated:

"I am not a scientist, I am a discoverer."

 

Sloppy terminology most likely.

So I was correct...

 

Just noticed this:

Utter rubbish.
Anything launched with enough velocity to reach 300 miles would vapourise through kinetic heating.

 

Since you just barely understood the premise of his device, and still don't REALLY understand it whatsoever, I am apt to believe Tesla's calculations and understanding of his device's effectiveness far and away over yours. Especially since he is credited via the development of advanced particle beam weaponry as well as the real ground work for what is H.A.A.R.P. technologies

 

Didn't understand the premise?
You mean as in "it isn't a particle weapon"?
Which but don't you understand?

But I do: it isn't a particle weapon.

Regardless of what he did or didn't do anything launched with sufficient initial velocity to cover 300 miles (and especially retain lethal impact at that range) would require such a high speed that air friction alone would vapourise it.
No calculation (calculation? Hmm what happened to the "test"?) will over-ride that fact.

Credited by whom for the "development of advanced particle beam weaponry"? Bearing in mind he denied the existence of the electron...
And HAARP?:shrug:

 

Come on Oli, you have been doing your best to discredit Tesla right along here. You said that the metal he was referring to was not "sub atomic" or the same as what is considered the standard for particle beam weaponry today. So what. Does that honestly surprise you and mean a single thing? No one ever contended they were sub atomic because at the time that electron microscope research facilitation didn't exist. What Tesla contended was that "microscopic" PARTICLES of Tungsten would be used, not just pieces of metal, just any pellets, or buck shot for that matter. You are also not being forthcoming with respect to his purposed method of delivery. This was not intended to be "shot" or "blown" through a typical air stream like a BB gun, but rather energetically repelled via ionic charge. I don't believe you have done any REAL research here Oli, although I will certainly not deny that you are more knowledgeable than myself in many respects. It's my belief that you are spouting the typical disbelief and ridicule that aligns itself with a passé form of empirical scientific knowledge concerning physics. The truth is that the status of typified empirical science has been left in the dark because 90% of the real cutting edge physics research is presently classified and unavailable to the general scientific public like yourself with respect to this specific technology.

Another thing to point out is that Tesla's research paper work has never been completely accounted for with respect to the last 30 years of his life's work. He was theorizing about the forms of the particle beam (directed energy related weaponry) that is being discussed here prior to 1900! A working model of his proto type design has been clearly evidenced as that which the Russians picked up after his death and subsequently developed.

Could you please provide me the sources for what you are stating as Tesla's denial of the electron. I don't believe he ever denied the electron, although I realize his views were not identical concerning the electron. Frankly, I would like to see ANY proof that Tesla was ever wrong with respect to claims he made. I am requesting this from a seriously interested perspective.

Without question, Tesla was the first scientist on the planet that did in depth research and development, say what you will, with respect to directed energy weaponry and ionospheric derived high frequency manipulation.

To say that Tesla did not lay the ground work, which incidentally is what I stated:

"Tesla most assuredly was the inventor of the "wheel" that proceeded particle beam defense research, and indeed Bernard Eastlund's H.A.A.R.P./Poker Flats r&d"

is incorrect. He most certainly did.

 

Here's the evidence. Tesla created a machine like the tesla coil that would project high energy at a target. It could theoretically shoot down balloons or aircraft (world war 1 is when it was created). Unfortunately he died before it was constructed. The US government confiscated the blueprints. What has become of it is unknown.

 

Nope, I'm doing my best to discredit the "Tesla did everything first and he was a veritable god" attitude of so many here and on other forums.

The point is that Tesla's "particle beam" was not what is understood to be a particle beam today - which is how his device is usually touted.

It doesn't matter AT ALL how they were discharged - any velocity sufficient to make a projectile carry 300 miles would vapourise that projectile within metres of leaving the "muzzle".

Your disbelief doens't alter the facts or the reality. I've been an analyst of weaponry of various forms for over 40 years so don't put your lack of knowledge down as a lack of research on my part.

You're free to believe whatever you like, but the facts don't have to conincide with your beliefs.

Um, no actually.
In this sort of field I don't class as one of the "the general scientific public", I'm an insider.

 

Except that the US Government subsequently released Tesla's papers and every UFO book (among others) that purports to show how UFOs work also tends to include diagram of how to make a Tesla coil...
Ever tried something called "Google"?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q="Tesla coil"&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw
So the "confiscation" hardly is hardly relevant these days, is it, since the "blueprints" have since been handed back and published many times?

 

Dude, the "particle weapon" (not even that) was not released. The tesla coil was not confiscated it was published by Tesla himself. And no the blueprints for the theoretical weapon was not released. Theoretically it was made to burn through the wooden biplanes and balloons, which lends itself to the idea that it is more of an energy weapon than a particle weapon. And dude you can find 10,000+ answers for almost any viable thing you look up on google, 90% of them are bs.

 

The projectiles were particulates iirc, ie, very small, so as small individual particulates they would experience a tremendous amount of heating they could not deflect or dissipate.

 

I will never doubt your credentials Oli. What good could come of it if I did? I am honestly grateful for your participation in discussions I am a part of, but you are dead wrong about the above. All of Tesla's papers were NEVER conclusively released. That's BS and if in fact you can show proof that they were, I will stand a corrected individual better for it.

Despite your insistence that you do understand the ACTUAL workings of Tesla's death ray, and the subsequent potential energy manipulation that he was developing, you have shown me zero evidence that you do. Just a peripheral understanding at best.

 

Doesn't follow at all: why does the fact that the intended targets were biplanes and ballons indicate an energy weapon?
New York Times quote -

Although I suspect there's possibly some newspaper hyperbole in there: 10,000 planes!!!
Yeah right.

Also -

http://davidszondy.com/future/tesla/teslaray.htm
Happens to have excerpts from the drawings - you know, the ones that weren't released

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Tesla_20Death_20Ray_20Bandsaw

 

Thanks Oli! All information is worthy of consideration. Especially since I have become so interested in Tesla. I will feedback when I have an opportunity to honestly take it "all" in.

 

I realised this weekend that it's actually worse than I'd originally stated.
You may not have to wait for kinetic heating to destroy the particles: it's a little-known fact that metal in very small particles self-ignites due to oxidisation.
Once the surface area to volume ratio reaches a certain figure the metal rusts so fast that it actually catches fire: powdered lead, believe it or not, is a very effective incendiary.