Bigelow, UFOs, MUFON and ‘DeLonge’ Road to AATIP

a reply to: pigsy2400

Hurry up!!!

So, would you subscribe then to ourselves from our future then? I ask as you will be aware the Rendlesham case is involved in all of this .

a reply to: Baablacksheep

I hope Arouet can contribute.

a reply to: Arouet

I've not seen you sight any papers. You keep referencing them in the abstract.

I'd love to read what you have.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep

originally posted by: Arouet

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: Arouet

So, what is the bottom line.

We are not alone, never have been alone and never will be alone.

So, would you subscribe then to ourselves from our future then? I ask as you will be aware the Rendlesham case is involved in all of this . You also appear to have some knowledge of Steve LaPlume , yes?

Yes.
Yes.

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Arouet

I've not seen you sight any papers. You keep referencing them in the abstract.

I'd love to read what you have.

negative gravitation, aka antigravity...

“Negative Mass in General Relativity,” Herman Bondi, Reviews of Modern Physics, American Physical Society, 1957
Edition Open Access | The Role of Gravitation in Physics | Negative Mass in General Relativity

“Guidelines to antigravity,” Robert L. Forward, American Journal of Physics, 1963
mlpol.net...

“An Exact Solution for Uniformly Accelerated Particles in General Relativity,” W. B. Bonnor and N. S. Swaminarayan, Zeitschrift für Physik, 1964
An exact solution for uniformly accelerated particles in general relativity

“Negative matter propulsion,” Robert L. Forward, Journal of Propulsion and Power, AIAA, 1990
arc.aiaa.org...

“The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Miguel Alcubierre. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994
arxiv.org...

“Motivations for antigravity in General Relativity,” G Chardin, Hyperfine Interactions, 1996
cds.cern.ch...

“CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity.” M. Villata, Europhysics Letters, 2011
arxiv.org...

"Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum?" Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, Astrophysics and Space Science, 2011
arxiv.org...

“Metamaterial-based model of the Alcubierre warp drive,” Smolyaninov, Physical Review B, 2011
arxiv.org...

"'Dark energy’ in the Local Void,' M. Villata, Astrophysics and Space Science, 2012
arxiv.org...

“Alcubierre warp drive: On the matter of matter,” B. McMonigal, G.F. Lewis, P O'Byrne, Physical Review D, 2012
arxiv.org...

“On negative mass,” Jonathan Belletête and M. B. Paranjape, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 2013
arxiv.org...

“Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time,” Saoussen Mbarek and M. B. Paranjape, Physical Review D, 2014
arxiv.org...

"Physical interpretation of antigravity," Itzhak Bars and A. James, Physical Review D, 2016
arxiv.org...

originally posted by: Arouet
And gravitational field propulsion is also the only known physically viable explanation for the behavior of anomalous aerial devices.

This astronomer has another viable explanation for the apparent behavior of anomalous aerial devices, including the one he saw himself that defied the laws of physics by zooming away too fast. All my research has shown he may be on to something, which he mentions in the first few minutes of his talk.

And yet these folks are still going around yapping about the “absurdity” of negative gravitation, aka antigravity, like trained parrots – apparently having refused to actually study the subject for five minutes.

Like a PhD physicist who apparently knows a lot more physics than you do? He doesn't deny "dark energy" can repel things, one could say somewhat like a type of "anti-gravity", but he rejects the notion that it could levitate UFOs.

How accurate is it to label dark energy as anti-gravity?

this is the only sense that dark energy has anti-gravity—it is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. But note that we will never be able to use dark energy to levitate a vehicle in the Earth's gravitational field—so it is not that kind of anti-gravity.

-Frank Heile, P.h.D. Physics, Stanford University

Conflagration of Search Engines...


Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Shane Carrasco (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about ET’s and the Pyramids and Planet X, etc.)
- This is an old audio interview with Richard Dolan that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Elmer Sheena (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about UFO’s and aliens, etc.)
- This is an old video talk by Richard Dolan that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Randall Shaffer (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about UFO’s, Planet X, aliens, etc.)
- This is an old podcast interview with Stephen Bassett that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Harry Willadsen (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about UFO’s, the Pleidian aliens, Billy Meier, and the Moon landing conspiracy)
- This is a brief video about Area 51 that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

That’s just one example – YouTube is now flooded with fake content that comes up when you search for “Pentagon ufo” – you’ll find all kinds of similar garbage being posted by new YouTube accounts in the search results:
pentagon ufo - YouTube

"secret Pentagon UFO program" videos that have nothing to do with the Pentagon UFO program...

Secret Pentagon UFO program revealed (posted today)
Posted by Evangeline Collene (this profile has posted 61 videos about Bible prophesy in the last 9 hours)
- This is an old CBS news clip about the Kepler program and has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program revealed (posted today)
Posted by Theda Kaufman (this profile is

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Misrepresenting the facts only reveals the depravity of the pathological bias against this story, and in particular, this man. I just listened to this interview again, and he never said that GR is wrong – to the contrary, he explained how GR describes the metric curvature of spacetime, which is the key requisite principle for gravitational field propulsion.

He also cited quantum entanglement as an example of apparent superluminal/instantaneous interaction, which is a valid interpretation at this point, although other models also exist to explain it (retrocausality for example). He incorrectly used the word “communication,” which isn’t entirely accurate because no useful information is transferred when an entangled state collapses into an observable property (like spin), but that’s a minor nitpick.

Robert Scheaffer sacrificed any credibility on this topic by misrepresenting that interview, just as you’ve done here.

The host guessed “6 trillion miles” to that star system, and Luis Elizondo simply let it slide; he never agreed with that estimate (the pertinent exchange begins at 15:51 in that NPR interview for anyone who cares to check). But that’s within an order of magnitude – the actual distance is roughly 26 trillion miles, and nobody uses miles to estimate distances in interstellar astronomy so perhaps only a professional astronomer would know the distance in miles off-hand.

Luis Elizondo also corrected the host and specified “Alpha/Proxima” to describe the binary system.

He also never said that relativity is wrong – here’s where Scheaffer’s own scientific credibility takes a hard blow: GR permits FTL spaceflight via the Alcubierre metric. That was established back in 1994. And Mr. Elizondo never cited quantum entanglement as evidence that GR is wrong; he cited it as an example of superluminal interaction, which is correct – the effect is instantaneous over arbitrarily large distances, to within experimental error. He did get entanglement jumbled up with relativity in an awkward way, but he never claimed to be a physicist.

And he has never portrayed himself as a science expert.

So really all of Robert Scheaffer's remarks about this interview are demonstrably wrong, and anyone who listens to the interview instead of taking Scheaffer's warped interpretation of it as gospel (as you've done) can hear it for themselves.

a reply to: Arouet

Thank you. This should be an interesting ride then.

a reply to: Arouet

Robert Scheaffer sacrificed any credibility on this topic by misrepresenting that interview, just as you’ve done here.

I don't believe anyone in this thread every mentioned that interview. Fox News has long been taken off air around these parts as no one ever watched it.

But carry on.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: Arouet

Thank you. This should be an interesting ride then.

Yes, it's why we chose to be here at this timing.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Arouet
And gravitational field propulsion is also the only known physically viable explanation for the behavior of anomalous aerial devices.

This astronomer has another viable explanation for the apparent behavior of anomalous aerial devices, including the one he saw himself that defied the laws of physics by zooming away too fast. All my research has shown he may be on to something, which he mentions in the first few minutes of his talk.

And yet these folks are still going around yapping about the “absurdity” of negative gravitation, aka antigravity, like trained parrots – apparently having refused to actually study the subject for five minutes.

Like a PhD physicist who apparently knows a lot more physics than you do? He doesn't deny "dark energy" can repel things, one could say somewhat like a type of "anti-gravity", but he rejects the notion that it could levitate UFOs.

How accurate is it to label dark energy as anti-gravity?

this is the only sense that dark energy has anti-gravity—it is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. But note that we will never be able to use dark energy to levitate a vehicle in the Earth's gravitational field—so it is not that kind of anti-gravity.

-Frank Heile, P.h.D. Physics, Stanford University

Dr. Heile errs to theory.

Theory predicted the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and indeed that conforms to our observations.

Theory predicted a gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun at twice the classical value, and so they tested that too and it thereby became a proven fact.

And theory predicted gravitational waves, so physicists built huge laser interferometers to detect them, and those are now observed fact.

GR also predicts that the proper spacetime metric will produce reactionless accelerations with the prospect for superluminal spaceflight, so of course that’s a reasonable new theoretical prediction to test. The hurdle here is how to set up such an experiment in the lab: it’s a scientifically sound concept to test, and we should do so at the first possible opportunity. Neglecting to do so would be the unscientific thing to do.

originally posted by: mirageman
But carry on.

Appeal to a Non-Existent Authority.

You.

Carry on.

a reply to: Arouet

You've shared some fascinating concepts here. I'm still catching up but thought provoking none the less.

I'm going out on a limb, based on what you'e said, that you consider TTSA honest actors.

Would therefore, your central thesis be:

- The aliens are time travelling descendants of humans
- They use negative gravitation technologies among others
- They follow certain patterns such as Backbone, 37th parallel
- They use meta materials and terahertz waveguides to generate this gravitation

If so, can we expect to see Rendlesham and Roswell as the centre of future TTSA revelations, in your expectations?

For me, I strongly expect to see Roswell and Rendlesham take centre stage.

Doh!!

Getting a lil testy in these here parts 🥓🔥

On topic: can we wrangle a neutral arbiter of the science being discussed? BASS shows up with his usual subterfuge and bread-crumbing (it’s all good, BASS, you’re still the bees’ knees), several posting about GR and derivative concepts, and some pot-shots being taken...I can’t make heads from tails the last 2 thread pages — science should be able to do so, no?

I don’t have the time to hit up JSTOR and track down an article from a discontinued periodical, but I do understand the basics and governing dynamics....surely, someone can come in here (altruism for $1000, Trap Trebek) and call balls and strikes. At any rate, I’m sure I’m not the only one ✌🏾

originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Arouet

You've shared some fascinating concepts here. I'm still catching up but thought provoking none the less.

I'm going out on a limb, based on what you'e said, that you consider TTSA honest actors.

Would therefore, your central thesis be:

- The aliens are time travelling descendants of humans

Most are not. Time is an illusion, btw.

- They use negative gravitation technologies among others

Many others including no propulsion (for travel purposes) at all. They see the properties of objects more clearly than we do.

- They follow certain patterns such as Backbone, 37th parallel

Yes, not always.

- They use meta materials and terahertz waveguides to generate this gravitation

One way, yes.

If so, can we expect to see Rendlesham and Roswell as the centre of future TTSA revelations, in your expectations?For me, I strongly expect to see Roswell and Rendlesham take centre stage.

Especially Rendelsham since it is known that materials were collected...noted in the ADAM project.

Insisting on Chain of Custody is cargo cult reasoning. Coc makes sense when the evidence could have been tampered with, but the whole evidential value of real samples would stem from irreproducible properties. like, for example, a microstructure that is beyond our technological reach, or not affordable on a state actor level, or, e.g., an Isotopic ratio that doesn't exist on earth. Basically they would be tamper proof.