reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @InterstellarUAP
@InterstellarUAP - Interstellar
The "Star Shaped" UFO released by The Pentagon this week was also seen in 1967 & It's on the logo of the CIA 👀🛸👽 In October 1967, Devon police constables Roger Willey and Clifford Waycott chased a bright, star spangled, cross shaped UFO for 14 miles near Holsworthy (near Okehampton) in the early hours, reaching speeds of 90 mph. The silent object, reported on Oct 24, was seen at treetop height, often accelerating away when approached, and was part of a larger 1967 UK UFO flap Is there more to this than we first thought? Credit UFO Researcher @JustAC4t
reSee.it AI Summary
I recall Amy Eskridge’s anti-gravity talk, one of her last before she died. She warned that even public work can vanish. She traced gravity research from Biefeld-Brown to superconductors and propulsion breakthroughs, noting she could master any field in 3 months and that promising results often disappear. Her open work at the Institute for Exotic Science was visionary. Burlison cited Milburn’s claim of a targeted-energy attack. Her legacy inspires.
@InterstellarUAP - Interstellar
Amy Eskridge's Anti-Gravity Presentation, one of her last before she tragically passed away. “Even if you do it in the public, it still don't mean that the inventor won't disappear.” In one of her final presentations on antigravity, the brilliant scientist delivered a compelling historical survey of gravity modification research from the Biefeld-Brown effect and early experiments to modern superconducting approaches and propulsion breakthroughs. With inspiring confidence she noted, “I can learn any new field in just 3 months,” while observing how “Promising results always seem to disappear.” Amy’s dedication to advancing these ideas openly through the Institute for Exotic Science was truly visionary. Recently, Congressman Eric Burlison referenced allegations by ex-UK intelligence Operative Franc Milburn that Amy was targeted by a directed energy weapon and could have been murdered by an aerospace contractor. Her passion for unlocking these frontiers leaves an inspiring legacy.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion covers gravity, antigravity, and the history, experiments, and funding surrounding gravity modification research. Gravity is described as the fundamental force that interacts between masses over long and short distances, governing planetary origins. Antigravity is defined as gravity modification, noting that it is often mislabeled; it is presented as gravity modification rather than true negative gravity.
Historical timeline and theoretical context:
- Hipparchus’s heliocentric ideas (15th century) and Kepler’s planetary motion (16th–17th centuries) set the stage.
- Newton’s law of universal gravitation (1686) follows the inverse-square law.
- Relativity recasts gravity as a deformation of spacetime, implying antigravity is impossible without negative mass; Tesla’s perspective differs from curved spacetime, rejecting the spacetime curvature interpretation.
- Tesla proposed a vehicle using a space drive with “antielectromagnetic propulsion” and “dynamic theory of gravity” involving ether filling space and mass as vortexes; he rejected curved spacetime.
Gravity research and institutions:
- The Gravity Research Foundation founded in 1948 by Roger Babson (note: the name appears as Babson Prize in some references). It awards annual essays on gravity; winners include Steven and Gareth DeWitt, among others. Some essays favor antigravity possibilities; some are critical. Gareth DeWitt argued that “we don’t really have a theory, so why don’t we have devices that we say work?”
- 1950s–1960s: Government and contractor programs (e.g., Aeronautical Research Laboratory, later Aerospace Research Laboratory; Lockheed’s Gunkworks) reportedly conducted antigravity experiments at Wright-Patterson and elsewhere; the Searle generator is cited as a claimed antigravity/free-energy device with a rotating magnetic/insulator arrangement.
- 1940s–1950s: the Dean Drive (a claimed reactionless drive) and the Wallace machine (1968) with spinning brass discs purportedly aligning nuclear spin; both are described as unsubstantiated, with possible explanations rooted in friction or other conventional effects.
- Lathewate (Eric Lathey) gyroscopes: father of Maglev; demonstrations with large, heavy gyroscopes suggested a force orthogonal to spin and direction, but explanations rely on centripetal forces and Newton’s laws; not established as antigravity.
Mid- to late-20th century and notable individuals:
- 1970s: Mansfield Amendment restricts DOD funding for nonmilitary propulsion research, effectively curbing public antigravity research; private or black-budget efforts may continue.
- John Hutchinson (1970s–1980s): investigated Tesla-inspired effects, claimed replication of Philadelphia Experiment; demonstrations of metal deformations allegedly telekinetically controlled, though results are controversial and contested; associated with Hathaway Lab in Toronto. Anecdotes describe Hutchinson’s agoraphobia and later loss of replicability after medical treatment.
- 1990s: Woodward (“mock effect”) proposed a reactionless thrust enabling a warp-drive-like effect via large negative mass and spacetime manipulation; also discussed the Albuter/Albuter plot involving space-time compression/expansion.
Ning Li and Huntsville efforts:
- Ning Li (Ning Lee) and Doug Torr: 1990s efforts at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) proposed that a magnetic field on a superconductor could align ion spins and the solid matrix to produce a gravitomagnetic/gravitoelectric effect; Li founded AC Gravity LLC (1999) after leaving UAH; Li received a DOT contract (~$500,000 in 2001); Li’s status and outcomes became the subject of internet legends and speculation about funding and disappearance, with multiple conflicting narratives about her fate (cancer, return to China, involvement with DOD).
- Podlet Kanob (Podlet Canob) experiments: Russian scientist’s rotating YBCO (yttrium barium copper oxide) disc experiments tied to superconductors and gravity; YBCO was associated with Ning Li’s work; publicized claims of gravity-related effects and gravity beams.
- Robert Becker’s quantized gravity approach: applied Maxwell equations to gravity; his thesis at UAH is noted as being rarely accessible.
Other researchers and topics:
- Jose Vargas and Claude Poirier: in France, continued Podlet Canob-like research; Poirier’s NASA test (2015) reportedly observed a force leading to a dewar explosion while the disc remained undamaged; replication and interpretation remain debated.
- Searle device variants and Morningstar Applied Physics: John Brandenburg and Paul Murad’s Morningstar claim a 77% weight reduction using a gravito-electromagnetic framework; includes a ferromagnetic fluid in the center disc and contrasts with Grasp phenomena.
- Boeing and GRASP program: “Gravity Research for Advanced Propulsion” publicly acknowledged by Boeing in 2014; rumors of involvement persist.
- December 2017 declassifications: ATIP documents (DIA) reference traversable wormholes, negative energy, and warp-drive concepts; authors include How (and others) discussing space-time manipulation as a means to evade missiles; some documents describe space-time bubbles and speed illusions.
Proposed path forward:
- The consensus expresses the need for theories with testable hypotheses, focusing on quantized gravity and independent, privately funded research to enable publication and development free from institutional constraints.
- A proposed institute would: pool private funding into a stable pot, provide a public-benefit structure with generous royalties to inventors, and offer facilities (RF labs, robotics, materials, machine shop) and space for collaboration and commercialization, enabling researchers to pursue ideas without academic tenure pressures.
- The group emphasizes the need for credible, testable results and cautions that promising results often disappear, underscoring the role of independent funding and accountability in advancing credible antigravity research.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's get right into it and talk about gravity. Just kinda to start with the basics. What is it basically? It's the fundamental physical force, interacts between different masses over both long and short distances. It controls the origins of the planets, and those are all things we've heard before.
And antigravity is basically the the science of modifying gravity. So antigravity is kind of a misnomer. It's really more grab gravity modification, but colloquially, it's called antigravity. So just kinda start at the beginning. Right?
So Hippronikus published his theory of heliocentricity in the fifteen hundreds, and then, Kepler, of course, came up with the planetary motion stuff in the sixteen hundreds. And then Newton published his law of universal gravitation in 1686. And I guess one thing to really note about his law of gravitation is that it follows the inverse squared law, meaning that it it dissipates over a distance proportionate to the inverse of the the square of the distance.
Speaker 1: So
Speaker 0: that kinda leads us in what does relativity have to say about gravity. So relativity says that gravity is basically a a deformation in space time. So sometimes you see those pictures of, like, a planet, and then there's kind of a dip in space time that it kinda sinks in. And so relativity kinda says that antigravity is sort of impossible without negative mass. And this is one of his sketches of a vehicle that he proposed putting the space drive into.
And so he patented that. The patent number's there. He called it antielectromagnetic propulsion, and he talked a lot about electro pulsation. And he had what he called the dynamic theory of gravity, which was really more of an theory where he talks about ether filling all of the space and he talks about mass being really just little vortexes of the ether. And then he says that, you know, as a as a particle decays, it's really just the kind of spinning down or not vortexing quite as fast and then dissipating.
And he totally rejects the notion of curved space time. So that relativity example we were just talking about about you have the planet kinda sitting in the curved space time, Tesla doesn't agree with that really at all. In 1948, the Gravity Research Foundation was founded by Roger Basson. He started a annual essay prize where you would write an essay on gravity and then he would give I think it was like a $4,000 prize at the time. And that prize has been won by many famous scientists.
Steven Steven is one of them. Five Nobel Prize winners have won the Babson Prize. Some of those essays are sort of in favor of antigravity being possible, possible, and some of them are more critical. So this is actually an essay that won in 1953 by a scientist named Gareth DeWitt, and he was kind of talking about just to paraphrase this, is you kinda need a good theory before you can really make a working device is what he's kinda saying here. We don't really have a theory, so why don't we have devices that we say work?
So he's saying we're a little ahead of ourselves on that. So then in the nineteen fifties, there were several government and government contractor programs. So there is something called the aeronautical research laboratory, which is now called the Aerospace Research Lager Research Laboratory. And they supposedly conducted many antigravity experiments on the Wright Patterson Air Force Base in the fifties, and perhaps may still be involved with that now. And then there was the research institute for advanced study that later turned into Lockheed's gunkworks.
In the nineteen forties, there was the Searle generator, and that was purported or claimed to be a combination of antigravity and free energy. It's kind of this this, like, metallic. You've got, like, a magnetic ring and then an insulator ring and then, like, a copper on the outside. And there's these little cylinders that that rotate. And and the thing does rotate around, and it makes a lot of noise, and it appears to do something.
But it's been sort of widely panned, although it's still in development with some modern efforts. There was the Dean Drive in the fifties and sixties. This was claimed to be reactionless drive, meaning that there's no propellant exhaust coming out as you thrust forward in one direction. It was basically, like, they have kind of a asymmetric weight thing that's asymmetrically kind of oscillating around and it creates kind of like a linear oscillation. And a lot of people think that effect may be actually just due to the friction of the thing oscillating back and forth, and then the friction just kind of pushes it forward.
So that's probably just an effective friction. There was the Wallace machine in 1968. This one was patented. It's basically some spinning brass discs, and brass is one half integer, you know, nuclear spin. And so the the idea of this is that you spin the the metallic around, and it's supposed to align the nuclear spin.
And then, you know, he he calls it the kinemastic field. So he talks about the motion of metals, and he really gets into, like, the kinetic part of aligning the nuclear spin. Again, this one is unsubstantiated. There's a lot of people that talk about this was patented and then kind of fell off the map. And so sometimes people talk about maybe it went black or was kind of taken under, but it's also just kind of unsubstantiated.
There's the Lathewate gyroscopes. So Eric Lathewate was widely known as the father of Maglev. His hypothesis was that the these rotating spinning discs could create a force that's orthogonal to both the spin and direction. So if you look at this thing here, it's spinning on this axis, and then it spins on the this axis as well, and then the the the forces in, I guess, this direction. So he had these big gyroscopes that he would, like, hold up over his head, and they were really heavy, and he would, like, hold it really effortlessly looking.
And he did a lot of, kind of interesting public displays of his, you know, swinging his jar the heavy gyroscopes around his head and that kind of thing. And so he made kind of a splash with that, but, you know, it maybe can be account accounted for through centripetal forces and Newton's second law explaining the effect. So it's kind of a cool and maybe a useful effect, but it's not necessarily true, like, antigravity or gravity modification. So I was gonna talk a little bit now about the modern efforts. So in 1973, there was the Mansfield amendment, and this restrict restricted DOD dollars from being spent on nonmilitary applications.
So things like propulsion or, well, you know, antigravity propulsion kind of fell under that that umbrella. And so this kinda means that we're not really doing antigravity research in the public sector of the government anymore at all by legislation. And so kind of the explanation at the time was, well, this stuff doesn't work, so we don't wanna waste money on it. But maybe another explanation is that they had their own black budgets, and they didn't wanna double spend on their other projects. So they just legislated that they didn't do that anymore.
So there's different interpretations of what was going on with the man's building. In the nineteen seventies, there is this guy, John Hutchinson, who he's kind of he's, like, all over you can find videos of him on YouTube, like, supposedly levitating things, and he was really trying to replicate replicate Tesla's work. He was really digging to Tesla. And so he know he noticed these anomalous effects when he was playing around in Tesla coils, and, he claims that he replicated the Philadelphia experiment, which is, of course, the experiment where the the ship, like, disappeared and then reappeared. So so he had these, like this is a picture of a barred metal that he supposedly could focus his machine on a metallic object, and it would just kind of, like, melt and twist down into itself.
And then you would touch it, and it wouldn't be hot to the touch. So there was no heat, but it somehow was rending the metal or deforming deforming the the metal metal in in some some way. Way. And And then then he claims that after he did this successfully for a long time that he started getting attention, and then people came in and started trying to get him to replicate it, and he lost his ability to perform the experiment which kinda means you can't replicate it, right?
Speaker 2: I saw one of those beams one time.
Speaker 0: Yeah, my dad actually saw one of those.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the guy at Halfway Labs showed me one,
Speaker 3: It was a
Speaker 2: six by six beam and it was split down the middle and then twisted like it was taffy but it didn't look like it had ever been hot. He had it mounted on a plaque and he brought it out of his office and showed it to him. He did experiments with Hutchinson.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So Hutchinson is affiliated with the Hathaway lab in Toronto. And they do have a lot of these metal pieces that have these weird deformations in them, but it's unclear exactly How was the mistake? How that happened. And if you ask Hal Pudoff what the cause of it was, he'll say, oh, I just think that guy was telekinetic.
Speaker 2: He said it was telekinetic. This guy, according to these guys, he would sit there in his basement and he had these radio transmitters and Tesla coils and all this stuff and there was no theory behind it and he would sit there and adjust the knobs and do this and do that sometimes for hours at a time and then eventually After an hour or two things weird things would start happening.
Speaker 0: Yeah,
Speaker 2: and so how I thought that He was just telekinetic
Speaker 0: He's focused on it and
Speaker 2: that he wanted to happen so bad that it just happened and the strange thing about it was he was, What is it? Agoraphobic. He he didn't want to go outside. Yeah. So he stayed in the space all the time, but when people found out about his effect, they wanted him to come out and show it to people.
So they took him to a psychologist and he gave him some, pills for the agoraphobia. And they said that after he started taking those pills, could never do it again.
Speaker 0: So that's that's the loss of ability where he was suddenly not able to replicate it anymore. So according to Hal, it's because he was a telekinetic, but Hal believes in those things, so take that with a grain of It's an interesting So then in 1990, there was the Woodward effect. So Jim Woodward is known as sort of the father of the mock effect. So sometimes you hear about the mock effect in, like, popular literature. But so this is another reactionless thruster, kind of like the Dean Drive was a reactionless drive.
So meaning that you get thrust, but there's no propellant coming out the other end. So he said that this would enable basically a warp drive where you're you have a large negative mass and then it warps space time. And then what you have here is something called an albuter plot. Albuter. Albuter.
Yeah. And so this is supposed to be like a a compression and an expansion of space time that basically causes it to, like, travel in one direction. Solid time. So this this part is kind of interesting. So in the nineteen nineties, we actually had quite a bit of sort of antigravity research that was done here in Huntsville.
And there's a UAH scientist named Ning Lee, and she worked with a grad student named Doug Torr. This is Ning Lee here. That's Doug Torr, and that's he was the chair of the physics department. That's Larry Smalley. And so she puress that if you had a magnetic field on a superconductor, that it would align the ion spins and the the matrix of the the solid state ceramic that it would align the ions and produce this gravitomagnetic gravitoelectric effect.
And so Popular Mechanics did an article on her. NASA got involved, and they did a collaboration in the. And then she actually left UAH and founded this company called AC Gravity LLC, and that was in 1999. And if you look for her company, it's still registered, but no one really knows what they're doing. And she got a $500,000 DOT contract in 2001, and then it kinda ended there.
And we'll talk about that more in a second maybe. Oh, okay. Yeah. So what happened to Ning Lee? So if you Google what happened to Ning Lee, just Google that sentence.
It's kind of like a weird Internet legend that has originated out of Huntsville. This is a Reddit post under ARC conspiracy talking about, hey. What happened immediately? Why did she get DARPA DARPA funding and then disappear? So that's just kind of an interesting Internet legend that it's coming out of Huntsville.
Speaker 3: She had two other records.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've actually talked to some of them. I've I've run into people even outside of Huntsville and then sort of weird science anti gravity community, and when they hear I'm from Huntsville, they're like, oh my gosh, Ning Lee, what happened to her town meeting? I'm like, I don't know. I don't know what happened.
Speaker 4: She was a member of Hal five for a while.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. I've talked to a lot of people that have worked with her. We
Speaker 2: took a tour of her lab. Really? Back in 1997, the sponsored event. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yep. Well, if anyone knows what happened to
Speaker 3: Ning
Speaker 0: I would like
Speaker 2: to know. About it? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 3: I heard she went up to Maryland around that area.
Speaker 0: I've heard that. I've I've heard I've heard three different stories about Ning Li. I've heard that she got breast cancer from handling the the the toxic chemicals with the superconductors without gloves, and that she died in The US. I've heard that she went back to China and died there of breast cancer. I've heard that she just got sucked into the DOD and has been doing DOD stuff quietly ever since.
And I've heard that she went back to China to get funding because she couldn't find funding in America, and so she's working in China now. There's a lot of different stories about
Speaker 2: Doug Torr went and founded a a company.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've got a slide on that here. So kind of related to the thing is the Podlet Kanov effect. So this is a Russian scientist who, really, within just a few years of publishing her first paper about about superconductors and gravity, he started doing this rotating YBCO disc, and YBCO is kind of interesting because it was actually invented out of UAH by a a grad student, and it was famously stolen by another university and patented within, like, the next day of it being revealed to his professor. He the next day, he went to another university, was suddenly chair of the department, and was filing a patent for YBCO literally the next day.
Speaker 3: So what's YBCO?
Speaker 0: It's yttrium barium copper oxide. It's a superconducting material. It's one of the more high temperature ones. It was invented at UAH.
Speaker 4: Same stuff Ningli used. Right? That's the same stuff Ningli used.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Ningli was using YBCO and then product came off, kinda picked up from there. Good.
Speaker 3: The guy that invented YBCO. He's on Yeah.
Speaker 0: And his name, Doug Torre. Wasn't it? Doug Torre.
Speaker 1: He was the one that invented it.
Speaker 2: Robert Becker? Think you're gonna Doug was her stay.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Robert Becker did a quantized gravity thing where he took Maxwell's equations, and then he kind of applied them to gravity and quantized gravity kind of analogous to how you would electricity. And his thesis is over at UAH and I it's not on PDF. I had to, like, go and take a picture of every single page of his thesis.
Speaker 2: So I've been checked out twice. Right?
Speaker 0: Oh, I checked out Robert Becker's thesis at UAH and it's only been checked out twice. It was checked out in 1999 by the DIA interdepartmental library loan system and then it was checked out by me last year. But yeah. So the positive effect, rotating YPCO superconductors produces supposedly gravity shielding. And the the kind of funny story about this is that ECS was discovered because he was playing with superconductors trying to do something unrelated to gravity.
And then a guy, one of his collaborators walked into the the lab, and he was smoking a pipe, like a tobacco pipe. And the and the smoke drifted over the the superconductor where the experiment was, and supposedly, there was, like, a a vortex in the smoke up over the superconductor. And so they started looking at kind of, like, what what force is making that vortex in the smoke. And, they investigated further, and they decided they thought it was a gravity wave or a gravity beam going up and perturbing the smoke of a superconductor. But he had a 2001 patent.
He actually did collaborate with NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in the early two thousands, and the story goes that he came over here, and we didn't pay for his travel in time, and he got pissed off about it and didn't wanna come back anymore. But he claimed a 2% reduction in weight, And he was sort of, like, widely panned by the community. It was kind of a big splash when he first came out, and then a number of people well, a small number of labs have replicated or attempted to replicate with varying degrees of success. There have been some newer applications done by this guy Claude Poirier in France, and I've got a slide on him here in a second. But so that's for Jose Jose Vargas, who was also at here briefly, they actually then went to the after the stuff kinda wound down, they left and they went to the University of South Carolina, and they created basically their own gravity beam generator.
Generator. And, you know, they talked about it being an in inhomogeneous electric field. So they have, like, two electrodes. Like, one could be a sphere or, like, a hollow cone or that they talked about different shapes of electrodes, but the idea is that they're asymmetric, so, like, one is different than the other. And then they've got a website called experimental sonic gravity, which is still online, although it's unclear what their professional activity is or what they're still working on.
It's kind of unclear, but their website is still up. Then Tamir Dada was their collaborator with that at the university.
Speaker 2: I think they were awarded a couple of SPIRs and then then they disappeared.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So there's some evidence that they got some some funding for an SPIR and then they kinda fell off the map just like they needed.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Of a patent, that picture? The picture out of a patent?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. This picture of the one of the conical electrodes out
Speaker 2: of Jose Vargas actually joined NASA and pitched it to MSFC management, and he drew that picture on the wall in in front of us. And he was talking about Benz Larian or Kenz Larian mathematics. He used all these strange symbols and nobody knew what in the heck he was talking about.
Speaker 0: Robert Becker is one of the, like, 12 people in the world that can read a Jose Vargas paper and understand what the heck he's talking about. I guess, like
Speaker 3: He also applied to be the director of our lab there. Oh, Jose? Rogers got it. He said he know. Oh.
He applied for that position. Becker? No. Your whole labor party. Oh.
Oh, okay. So
Speaker 0: the whole superconductor thing in general has been sort of widely panned and then abruptly dropped. Right? So the Namely Popular Mechanics article, if you try to Google it, you cannot find it. It is not up anymore. You can find some other blogs that have reposted it, but it's no longer officially up.
Research was never made public by the university. Of course, was ousted by the University of Tampere almost immediately. And then Giovanni Modenese, who was a collaborator, I noticed last Yeah. I've I've seen some interviews with him, and he talks about this this smoke story and the super connected thing. Oh, and there's also this book.
I was at a sci fi conference a couple years ago called Dragon Con in Atlanta, and they had, like, a sci fi bookstore booth in the in the marketplace. And they had a whole bunch of science books, and I bought this book called Focus Science. And then like years later, I was flipping through it and they were talking about Podlet Canob and they even mentioned they even mentioned Huntsville and the fact that Podlet Canob had come over to Huntsville and that they talked about Ning Lee, but they didn't name her directly, but it was, like, obviously talking about her. And so there's sort of, like, maybe some kind of, like, undercurrent of let's go discredit this for some reason. They're that's gonna occur because they're they're spinning supermectin at all in there.
I actually believe that happened. It was told Jim Ashburn. Jim Ashburn. Jim
Speaker 3: Ashburn. Right? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Mhmm. He lives here in town.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I would love to talk to him. But yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, he also knows. I would love that. I
Speaker 0: found him on LinkedIn, but I haven't talked to him. Okay. So Claude Boyer in the February, he's kind of like the only lab that has somewhat successfully done pod like pod pod stuff and actually published. Right? So he's he has sort of a modified experiment where he he he does the the YBCO.
I think his doesn't rotate. It's just static. And his YBCO and he claims to get a propelling thrust out of the superconducting disc. And so this is a picture of a liquid nitrogen dewar with a superconductor down in there, and he, you know, actuates or triggers the emitter. And the dewar basically explodes from whatever force is caused by the by the superconductor.
There's some kind of force coming out of the superconductor that explodes the liquid newer. And this was actually tested at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in 2015, which has not been published. My dad did that, and they received they very similar results where you can you can trigger the the the superconductor and there is some sort of explosion that comes out of the superconductor, but when you take the disc out and look at it, it's totally undamaged. So the dewar around it explodes, but the disc is undamaged. So whatever force is coming out of it comes out of the disc in such a way that it doesn't blow it up.
It's kinda
Speaker 2: weird. Yeah. We took we took the test of them in mini buckets from Walmart because we blew up glass doers. Mhmm. Blew them all over the lab and it cost too much.
Speaker 0: Kind of an anomalous effect that those results kinda need some more explanation or exploration just
Speaker 3: to kinda figure out what's going here.
Speaker 0: And then, one of the more recent antigravity devices or experiments would be Morningstar applied physics. So some of you have probably met John Brandenburg and Paul Murad. So they have this company Morningstar, and they have what's basically a modified Searle machine. So we talked about the Searle machine a little bit earlier. Brandenburg talks about his gem theory, which is this gravito electro magnetism theory, and they claim a 77% weight reduction.
So this you can see it's very similar to the Searle generator generator that we looked at earlier. It's got the rollers, and they magnetically rotate and all that. But they also kind of the different part about this one is that there's actually a ferromagnetic fluid inside the center disc here. And I think it's actually just special oil with some iron shavings in it. But so they plan 7% weight reduction.
And then kind of the rumor that they're sort of privately planning is they're now planning 20% weight reduction. But I'm not so sure they're actually getting 20%. So there's, of course, the more well known ones like Boeing Phantom Works. So this Gravity Research for Advanced Propulsion or the GRASP program has been around probably for a while, but they admitted to it publicly in 2014. It's when they sort of admitted they had that program.
I was reading there's some chatter about maybe being involved in this. I'm I'm not sure if that's true or not, but I was sort of hearing that. And then so these are the so Frampton works is where you get these black triangles that people talk about sometimes. So if you're into, like, the UFO scene, Mufon has a lot of reports of these, like, black triangles that people look up and they just see, like, a black triangle blocking out the stars in the sky. There's a lot of reports of of things like that, and that is supposedly the t r three b black triangle.
And sort of the rumor is that that's what you call an ARV, which is an alien re reproduction vehicle, which is sort of like meant to look like a UFO, but isn't really one because it's really from Boeing. So and the mechanism maybe resembles a brown generator. I don't know. It's hard to get information on. And then, of course, you have recent declassifications.
So in December 2017, some of you may be aware there was a big a big a big declassification of several different documents. Most of them related to this ATIP program, the advanced aviation threat identification program. And that was if you're familiar with, like, the To the Stars Academy, they did a lot of media promotion around these d declassifications. And so, like, here's one here's two examples documents that were declassified. This is a defense intelligence reference document.
This one is on traversable wormholes, stargates, negative energy. And this one is titled warth drive, dark energy, and the manipulation of extra dimensions. So these are DIA documents that were actually released.
Speaker 3: Who are the authors?
Speaker 0: The authors? It's right there, but I can't read it.
Speaker 2: How wrote one of them.
Speaker 0: How wrote one of them. I don't know who the other
Speaker 3: one was. Because house group over in her days is being primary place of fire sign. It's brought
Speaker 5: a lot of stuff.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So How how how was written? There's a bunch of these DIRD documents that how was written. I've got a bunch of them
Speaker 3: on the
Speaker 2: Hal wrote one about how if you can manipulate space time, then you could essentially fall towards any direction you wanted to fall. Yeah. And then it also affected time, which would make the UFO difficult to shoot down because Yeah. The bullets come at them, but they effectively, they have all weight to do something about it inside the craft.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It helps us about the space time bubble around the craft, and so it looks like they're going really fast, but to them inside the ship, they're going at a normal speed. So it's kinda like dodging bullets in the matrix.
Speaker 2: When the air comes through them at hypersonic speed, it goes into the time field, and the air doesn't seem to be moving at them so fast, and that's why there's no fluid friction. According
Speaker 0: to his
Speaker 2: document that he wrote. So
Speaker 0: these are kinda interesting. There's some kinda funny some funny cartoons, and some of them are like wormholes and stuff. They're kinda interesting to look at. So the future, what's the next step for anti gravity? We've looked at a whole bunch of different devices of, like, varying credibility.
So how are we gonna get to the point where we have credible antigravity? And I have a picture of Huntsville here because you might as well get it here. Have a theme. So in conclusion, what now? We kinda need theories with testable hypotheses.
That was what that Bryce Witt guy said, right, for the award. He was talking about, hey. We're kind of ahead of ourselves here. We need good theory so that we can test it and see if the theory is right or not. So we we really need to focus on, like, the the the quantized gravity.
Is that a thing or not? And figure out the theory and then go build something. We think we need independently funded research because when you're at a university or an academic institution and you wanna work on this stuff and they say, oh no, that's French, you can't do that. Or you have a result that you wanna publish and they say, oh no, that's crazy. And then so that that suppresses a lot of publications that maybe are accurate, but they're perceived badly and so professors are afraid to publish it.
But if you had a privately funded research institution, you can just study whatever you want to, and you don't have to worry about tenure. So the other thing is promising results always seem to disappear. So, like
Speaker 1: Can you build an antenna which will will able to receive frequencies with wavelengths of 10 to minus 29 meters.
Speaker 5: Wave Well, it antenna.
Speaker 1: But high frequency. Yeah. I I don't need just ultra ultra ultra high, like, camera range or something. Yeah. But wave lengths are 10 to minus 30.
Speaker 2: Well, a neutron will decay in eleven minutes,
Speaker 5: I think.
Speaker 1: Well, every every every atom, every element we have today contains a nucleus and at least one electron spinning around it. Can you name an elec element which it got no electrons spinning around it. And where does that A
Speaker 2: neutron has no electrons spinning around it, but it has a high
Speaker 1: mass of a weight per cubic centimeter?
Speaker 2: What does it weigh? Correct. 1,800 times the weight of an electron.
Speaker 1: A typical atom or molecule is free is full of free space.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: Now if you ain't got no free free space, everything gets collapsed into the nucleus, how much does that weigh per cubic centimeter or cubic inch? Well, hundreds and hundreds of tons, and so it's called black hole. So when But I can't
Speaker 2: even tell you how small an electron is.
Speaker 1: So no. When you look at doing more, sometimes you look into those
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: So
Speaker 0: that's kind of walking by the guy. Yeah. So I I met him in September, actually, in SD's Park. There was a culture conference. Tony and John Cole and I were there.
And he's a he's a nice he's nice there was Keith that was his, like, personal conference where it's, like, basically the groups that work with him and then the groups that try to disprove him. It was kinda funny actually because it was, like, it was the groups that try to prove him right, and then it was the groups that try to prove him wrong. And it was a conference just for like 40 or 50 people that fall in that category. But, yeah, I'm sort of familiar with his work, but I know that he only ever gets like a micronewton of thrust. He never really gets that much.
Speaker 2: Jim, but that's
Speaker 6: just about every single one of them. They're all getting these these very small fish of thrust. Yeah. So it's hard it's hard to say that if they're getting anything out of it or is it just some sort of secondary effect of something else like let's say with like the one with the with the Russian scientists who saw the smoke going up, you know, that that could just as easily been a current or a vortex, you know, because they got a really cold mass. They got some liquid nitrogen lying around and that could actually be causing a convection current.
Speaker 3: It was outside the chamber. It wasn't. Yeah. Well, he
Speaker 0: claims that it was, like, even, like, a floor above the lab that you would get this deflection.
Speaker 6: But it's still a cold spot. There would still there would still be a a heat gradient in there because it is it is much colder than the outside environment. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I mean, there's there's been alternative explanations for, like, the poorer effect, which is kind of, you know, going on the public kind of thing. There's some people that say that, oh, the explosion is just the liquid nitrogen vaporizing. So there's like there's alternative explanations like that.
Speaker 6: Now I do know that they have that they're developing graphic sensors for mining operation because Yeah. Because you can they they they get they wanna get it down all the way down to, like, into a precision of 1,000,000,000 of a g so they can pick it so they know if there's, a deposit of oil or or iron in the ground. Now I was wondering why couldn't they use something like that for these experiments? I mean, they're really are if they're really affecting gravity and that and if they're really having an effect on gravity, these things should be going off like an alarm.
Speaker 0: My answer to that would be why don't they do something like like that for that experiment because no one funds it. That's why they don't do that.
Speaker 2: These Bradley meters that you're talking about, they tend to sit them down and and and there for days or hours at a time
Speaker 6: So the frequency for real law for real things.
Speaker 3: Okay. My recollection of the new data original work was that they explained that above this we have a lot of debate. It's not making some health care space science like all going on. And that caused a number of people to including myself to say, you know, this really is really neat. She wouldn't publish anything.
Because you could make the equivalent of a simple water wheel by taking a bunch of rods with large mass on them. Put it put in the mass of both spinning discs, and then on the next floor, the same kind of thing. Electricity Right. Without having to spend anything. So it will be a way of generating large amounts of energy for free.
Right. So that was one of the problems that's kind of it's kind of a conundrum
Speaker 0: of Yeah.
Speaker 3: An apparent production of a professional motion on Sheeport. Yeah. Called just to have a policy solicitor, the Ningli original results.
Speaker 0: My understanding of the Ningli, like, sort of roadblock, and maybe you can tell me if this is accurate, but I heard I heard that she was trying to make the discs too big and that they would crack all the time. They did. And that she spent all her time trying to make these big discs and they kept cracking instead of just making some smaller ones and getting some results.
Speaker 3: We did make some smaller ones. Oh, okay. Yeah. But she really focused on, you know, because I think that she was after results, and reported that she was seeing a certain percentage of reduction. Yeah.
Yeah. Was wondering I
Speaker 2: don't think she ever reported anything about taking any gravity
Speaker 0: from that.
Speaker 3: I think she's published a lot of She just had that paper she published that
Speaker 2: that is suggested that
Speaker 3: there should be an effect.
Speaker 0: You might be thinking of Paul that come up because he did publish a 2% weight loss. It's that be
Speaker 2: there were two experiments. The first one was the spinning disk.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The second one was the impulsive electrical experiment that produced was said to have produced a gravity wave that was collimated that would like, disturb a rubber ball hanging hanging on a string in a vacuum. And it you could move it to the next building across the street, it would still disturb it. Anyway, that's what they said. Although, you know, they never would show a film of it. They were doing it at the Moscow Institute.
That's what he did after he went. He left Tempe, Finland and went to Moscow, and then he published this paper with this Where
Speaker 3: in Moscow? Which institute?
Speaker 2: I don't remember the exact name. If they call it the Moscow Institute or
Speaker 3: It's a materials institute of some sort.
Speaker 2: Anyway, they had, they used a big megavolt marks bank and chamber. Yeah. So, I don't know if that one's been replicated by anybody.
Speaker 0: I think Boyer has the most quantitative measurements in terms of, like, actual numbers rather than just looking at the physical deflection and see it with your eye.
Speaker 2: Hathaway did a small experiment.
Speaker 3: He had a four inch disc, but it wasn't a two layer or anything. Was just YVC old disc. He didn't see anything. I don't think he used the voltages as high as I'd like to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And Foyer was using about two kilovolts too. Yeah. So it's much lower. Fentanyl was using about a half a million volts.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: Well, we can the Poirier test that was done at NASA, it was the the force was measured with a little fiberglass rod that went down into the liquid nitrogen mirror, and it had a little, accelerometer on it. So the vibration that went up the fiberglass rod would read the, it would read the vibration, and you could get, a force, like thrust measurement off of that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. We got in excess of 500 g's, but we never reproduced the waves that he claimed except for we did float. We put a second superconductor under the dewar just in a coffee cup and we floated a little magnet on top of that where you levitate a magnet. When we fired the Poyer device, the little magnet the theory being that if we made a gravity wave by putting electricity through a superconductor that maybe the inverse would also be true. That if a gravity wave going through the superconductor might produce a current.
So if you levitate a small magnet just by the Meissner effect right over the superconductor, that's because there's a supercurrent which is generated by the magnet which exactly mirrors the field and makes the magnet float. Thought perhaps if we put that underneath the doer very close to it that that would be disturbed and that actually did happen. When we fired it, the little magnet went flying away. And, you know, we told management about this and but we we never we never saw the waves that he claimed. Now when you're doing a pulse powered experiment with 20,000 amps at 2,000 volts, getting the signal is never a problem.
You know, you you have to shield everything and you still get a signal. I mean, not even plug your not even put your input leads into your oscilloscope, you will get a signal and it will look approximately like your current waveform. So it's not a question of getting the signal, it's a question of getting the right signal. When we use a double faraday cage, we did not reproduce foyer signals. However, we did see a whole lot of really strange effects like the tossing of the magnet and forces coming off the disc.
And you pull the disc out and the disc is unaffected and if a it thermal explosion between the layers of the disc, it would have destroyed the disc but you pull it out and it was pristine. And we even got a million frame per second movie of a wave coming off that hit one of his emitters. And this wave apparently was what kept blowing up our our doors. They blow them all over the place. So we blew up Mina Buckets from Walmart.
Was interesting. It's something that, you know, with our institute, maybe we can try to redress that.
Speaker 5: We talked about funding and that that that seems to be the common denominator of all this stuff. Yes. Funding or lack of them.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 5: Who's where is there any money? Do you know are are you aware of any private money that's being spent on this?
Speaker 0: Or Yes.
Speaker 5: Is anybody talking to angel investors or that sort of stuff?
Speaker 0: Or Let me give you the down low on the funding situation. So you've got your black budgets that obviously is well funded, and then you have your academic budget, which is nonexistent because they think it's okay. And then you have your random billionaires who have a hobby. Right? And they made their money doing something else, but they are applying their money towards weird, anti gravity stuff just because they wanna be known for something other than what they made their money in.
So there's several there's a handful of, like, random billionaires running around who fund these types of things. The Church's Fried Chicken, the billionaire, funded the Hathaway Lab. The American Best Inn and Suites billionaire, Robert Bigelow, of course, is Bigelow Aerospace. There are some others that I know of, but we're we're really trying to address that problem with the institute that we're doing because I've I've been in I've seen government research. I've seen academic research.
I've seen private research, and money is always the problem. The technology is never the problem. The technology is there, and the talent is there. The money is never there. So what we've done with the institute is we've we've sort of assembled some of these random people with big budgets and a hobby.
And we've said, hey. Can can we, like, pool money into, like, a big stable pot of money so that we can have, like, a safe, well funded sandbox for people, smart people to play in and not have to worry about government election cycles affecting their budget or tenure affecting their budget or even when you find your billionaire, like, the billionaire runs out of money or loses interest or run their, you know, disappears. So you can't just be dependent on one wealthy investor. You need a big pot of money that's stable that you know isn't going anywhere. So that's what we're trying to do with the institute is just fund the institute and then pick projects that we think are promising and then fund those.
So we're kinda creating like a new vehicle for funding this type of research. That that's that's kind of the approach I'm taking right now.
Speaker 5: Is there any possibility of of of I don't know. It's probably hard if not impossible to do, but crossover between black world and the illuminated world that that because frequently things move from the illuminated world into black world.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We noticed that. Intact. Yeah.
Speaker 5: And they disappear. But, I mean, it's to the black world's advantage to keep the illuminated world going because that acts as a spawning ground for ideas that they might not have in black world. So it's not necessarily their advantage to keep it completely executive. And potentially, since Griffin is now
Speaker 0: Yeah. I've thought about that. The the combination of the private and the and the, you know, public private institution and then kind of working with the the budget.
Speaker 2: A quote from Griffin.
Speaker 3: A quote from Griffin.
Speaker 2: NASA is no longer by any means a research organization.
Speaker 0: That is a Griffin quote.
Speaker 2: That's Griffin quote. I
Speaker 0: imagine there are some strong opinions about Griffin in the room.
Speaker 4: Yeah. That's what I wanna ask. What Yeah. Tell us is is it nonprofit? If if someone has an idea, a technology, or if they have a basis for for science, scientific principles they may wanna come to you, What do they do?
What do they get out
Speaker 6: of it?
Speaker 0: Well, so we're trying to make sort of a an environment where smart people can gather and experiment with ideas and be rewarded for their intellectual property. How? Royalties.
Speaker 4: The what? Royalties?
Speaker 0: Royalties. Generous royalties.
Speaker 4: So you're a corporation. Or or
Speaker 0: We're a public benefit corporation, which is a newly legislated form of entity, which is kind of like a nonprofit, kind of like a c corp. So basically, we have a public benefit mission, which is the furtherance of public science in our case. And then, we're privately so a b corp can take investment and give investors a return, whereas a nonprofit cannot. So since we were trying to attract these, like, random high net worth individuals, we really wanted to be a b corp and not a nonprofit so that we could take their investment and give them a return for their investment. So that's why we're a b corp.
B corps actually don't exist in the state of Alabama, which is why we're registered in Delaware. Some states have them, some don't. But yeah. So we're planning on negotiating, generous royalty rights to the inventor because you can go over on the arsenal and you can invent for forty years or thirty years and never see a royalty even though it was your idea, or you can come to the institute and get a generous cut of your own intellectual property. Property.
And we, of course, would have the resources to commercialize your
Speaker 4: Yeah. That's the next step. What what you've got to be able to get someone to manufacture You it. To
Speaker 0: get something valuable
Speaker 4: out of it. And that's a different entity usually.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So so we put the resources in funding the research, and we put the resources into making money off of the research, which is commercialization or patent sales or licensing or a variety of mechanisms. And then right now, we're closing money to build basically a big facility here in town. So it's gonna be about a 100,000 square foot facility, and it's it's gonna have, you know, RF labs and robotics labs and a materials lab and a machine shop and spaces that you can rent if you have a company. You can come rent a space and then share our machine shop so you don't have to make your own machine shop.
We have that already. So it's gonna be like a community space where you can actually get some of this research done, and then we'll have funding as well for people. So that's the whole point is to make it make it easier for the inventor to invent because inventors spend so much time worrying about where the next dollar is gonna come from and they shouldn't have to worry about that. They should be thinking about the science and the technology. So that's what we're trying to do.
Speaker 2: So where does the money actually come from? From investors in general?
Speaker 3: Yeah. Not contracts?
Speaker 0: We'll be doing contracts, but we are taking investment capital right now. Yeah. So we'll have equity investors.
Speaker 4: So there are share you do have shares just that? Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: The shares are traded just like a c corp.
Speaker 4: Okay. I know how that works.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And it's taxed just like a c corp. But you just have this public benefit mission, is, in our case, furthering public science.
Speaker 4: And you already have a suite of potentially interested investors?
Speaker 0: Yeah. We're closing that right now.
Speaker 4: Okay. Good. Yeah.
Speaker 0: So yeah. We've got
Speaker 4: Ego money. Rich man, ego money. Right? Yeah. That's where it comes from usually.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: There there's some of those random rich people with pet projects that they wanna they wanna work on. So but they see the value in the research. You know, they're usually people who your ideal investor isn't someone that you have to convince that the research is valuable. Your ideal investor already knows that the research is valuable and is interested in giving you money. So you go find those people.
You don't try to convince someone who's skeptical, you go to the person who already believes in the cause.
Speaker 4: So what about the innovator who's afraid of disappearing?
Speaker 0: That's a whole another problem. I think doing it in the public is better in that case. But that's a different It does mean it
Speaker 3: will disappear. Even if you do it in the public, it still don't mean that the invader won't disappear for lots of reasons.
Speaker 4: By being late.
Speaker 5: Participation in there, that in itself will give you a good mechanism to go talk to these people that have loads of money and
Speaker 0: Oh, absolutely. I mean Yeah.
Speaker 5: That that
Speaker 0: I know a lot of people like that too, and I'm interested in talking to more of them for sure.
Speaker 4: Space has permittivity, permeability, and resistance. Permittivity and permeability, you get your inductance, your capacitance. Yeah. It's got physical characteristics.
Speaker 0: Because it's made out of something ie ether?
Speaker 4: It's interesting that the form of the equation for the resonant circuit, or RLC circuit, is the exact same equation for the speed of light. It's some constant over the square root of the permittivity and permeability rate inductance and capacitance. Same thing. If
Speaker 0: you're interested in that kind of thing, there's this guy on YouTube. His name is Ken Wheeler. I don't know if anyone's ever seen Ken Wheeler's videos, but he talks about how it's absurd to say that space is empty because space has properties, which is what you just said. So if if you give me your email address or something, I'll send you some
Speaker 6: of his
Speaker 0: ideas because he's talking about exactly what you're
Speaker 3: talking about.
Speaker 4: I'm going to the dinner after the event. I'm going to the dinner after this.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
reSee.it AI Summary
I heard Joe Rogan on Jesse Michels’ podcast recount Anna Paulina Luna telling him to read the Book of Enoch. He did, and it shattered his reality—fallen angels, interdimensional beings, ancient tech, UFOs, nephilim, and biblical secrets tied to disclosure. His voice shook as he unpacked it. Watch the clip before it’s scrubbed. What do you think—truth or tinfoil?
@InterstellarUAP - Interstellar
🚨 Joe Rogan just dropped a shocking revelation on Jesse Michels podcast today! 😱 Remember when Rep. Anna Paulina Luna sat down with Joe and straight-up told him: "READ THE BOOK OF ENOCH"? Well, Joe finally did... and it SHATTERED his entire reality. We're talking fallen angels, interdimensional beings, ancient tech that defies physics – the stuff governments hide from us. UFOs? Nephilim? Biblical secrets tying into modern disclosure? This is the rabbit hole we've been waiting for. Joe's voice was straight-up SHAKING as he unpacked it. If this doesn't wake people up, nothing will. Watch the clip NOW before it's scrubbed. What do YOU think – truth or tinfoil? 👽📖 #JoeRogan #BookOfEnoch #AnnaPaulinaLuna #UFOs #Conspiracy #Disclosure #MindBlown #Viral