Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Don't forget that operating at a loss is highly desirable; this will actually allow the business to dodge significant taxes in its first year. If the business fails, of course, it does mean Delonge might get to erase the debt, but it hardly betrays "money-grabbing" intentions.

If you believe his passion is genuine, there's no reason to think that he's betting against his own venture.

I don’t call Tom DeLonge the “Donald Trump of Disclosure” for nothing, you know!

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Attention Brother @Thomas R Morrison and Sister @Constance ! You’re both gonna love this article.

It is an op-ed piece in the San Diego Tribune, which is the paper of record for their hometown boy, Tom DeLonge. (Yet Tom is never mentioned!) He goes through the history of UFOlogy as treated by the media and takes media to task for their mocking attitudes.


Do we unite against alien threats or ignore them to avoid mockery?
Do we unite against alien threats or ignore them to avoid mockery?

Or maybe it’s the most baffling moment in the history of journalism, given that the source of this stunningly provocative evidence pointing to aliens frequenting Earth is not someone with a collection of tin-foil headware — it’s the Pentagon, the most technologically advanced, well-funded institution on the planet. I, for one, welcome our potential new alien overlords. And I’m not going to let other journalists’ inexplicable dearth of interest in what seems to be by far the biggest scoop of the 21st century shut off my speculation as to what our apparent alien observers are up to.

 

[Constance]

Can we get beyond attempting to interpret everything TTS does in terms of private profit?

[to @MrBeliever ]If that sentence made any sense, I could take you seriously.

You still don't seem to understand those calculation don't require any special logic, assumptions or choices in values. It's simply instrument values seen in the video as inputs, equations that turn those into coordinates relative to the starting point, and the result is a graph of jet and target trajectories.

One thing you seem to be unwilling to consider is the general recognition, on the basis of numerous pilot encounters and other observations, that many ufos demonstrate control over the physics we understand as limiting motion, speed, and behavior in the 'air' within the capacities of our own aerial technologies. Human physicists and ufo researchers now long in the tooth have recognized the freedom of some ufos to apparently break what we consider 'the laws of physics' in sudden accelerations, decelerations, even hovering [releasing the effects of gravity on them]. Given that freedom and capability beyond our understanding, how can we assume that ufos cannot make accommodations in many situations -- especially when they are being closely observed and approached by terrestrial jets -- with forces such as gravity, blocking or limiting the constraints of wind speed upon them, for example, in such a way as to confuse our understanding of what they are doing or about to do relative to what our pilots can see and our technologies can measure in observing them?

 

[uforadio]

Dear colleagues.

Last night (March 23rd, 2018), Tucker Carlson had a 6th feature about UFOs and 5th part about the Pentagon UFO Study.

You can watch it here:
2018-03-23 - FOX News - Tucker Carlson Tonight: Interview with Christopher Mellon about 3rd AATIP Video

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

And here is the complete set in a chronological order:

2017-11-20 - Interview with Tyler Rogoway about Oregon Aeronautical UAP Incident

2017-12-18 - FOX News - Tucker Carlson Tonight: Brett Larson Comments the Pentagon UFO Study

2017-12-20 - FOX News - Tucker Carlson Tonight: Interview with pilot David Fravor on the USS Nimitz UFO Incident

2018-01-11 - FOX News - Tucker Carlson Tonight: Interview with Leslie Kean

2018-03-12 - FOX News - Tucker Carlson Tonight: Interview with Luis Elizondo on the 3rd AATIP Video & the Pentagon UFO Study
2018-03-12 - Interview with Luis Elizondo on the 3rd AATIP Video & the Pentagon UFO Study

2018-03-23 - FOX News - Tucker Carlson Tonight: Interview with Christopher Mellon about 3rd AATIP Video
2018-03-23 - New Interview with Christopher Mellon about 3rd AATIP Video

Main Index media page updated:
Pentagon UFO Study

Best wishes.

 

[Realm]

Can we get beyond attempting to interpret everything TTS does in terms of private profit?

Not really, if that's all they seem to be doing.

Do you accept that, based on their own official financial documents, DeLonge is making investors pay for his past losses of his entertainment businesses?

One thing you seem to be unwilling to consider is the general recognition, on the basis of numerous pilot encounters and other observations, that many ufos demonstrate control over the physics we understand as limiting motion, speed, and behavior in the 'air' within the capacities of our own aerial technologies.

You are trying to confuse what that specific video shows to some general ideas of other cases, which supposedly show something else. If you want to claim there's evidence of something that really requires some exotic explanation beyond the physics we know, show the evidence of such case, and then we can talk about that. Now we are talking about calculations concerning a video that shows a small and relatively slow object that flies in a straight line at an altitude of 4 kilometers and does nothing interesting. There's no reason to try to invent some exotic explanations for something that needs none, and by all the information we have, is consistent with a bird or a balloon.

We don't even know who invented the idea that such a mundane event should be regarded as some sort of significant UFO event. Those pilots didn't say anything that justifies that, they just couldn't identify a small faraway target that was too small for them to see with their own eyes, and they just saw pretty much the same thing we do, a tiny blob on their screen, with presumably around similar quality (sans blurring caused by video compression). They seemed to be just practicing using their instruments, and were excited to succeed with a moving target that happened to be there. It happened in real-time for them, so it's no surprise if they happened to think it was fast and flying low on those seconds they saw it, if the TTSA (and Elizondo) couldn't figure that's not true during all those months they had that video. I don't really understand how they could have missed that if they did any analysis on it at all, since it caught my eye in my initial reactions from the video and values they were giving before I had time to do any proper calculations:
Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

It just seems to be a case of invalid assumptions starting to live life of their own, because people just assumed, instead of making calculations.

Human physicists and ufo researchers now long in the tooth have recognized the freedom of some ufos to apparently break what we consider 'the laws of physics' in sudden accelerations, decelerations, even hovering [releasing the effects of gravity on them].

You mean UFO researchers and clueless journalists have made baseless claims of something breaking the laws of physics? I don't remember "human physicists" having said that, at least for these cases. And if I recall, Fravor or Slaight didn't make such claim either of the Nimitz case, but it was reported as if they did. None of the videos released by TTSA display any need for anti-gravity, and Fravor explained seeing accelerations that were fast as compared to his plane, not instant.

 

[MrBeliever]

Yeah, no one is breaking the laws of physics. They are doing things we know are possible in theory, but have never been able to do due to the insane energy requirements - possibly higher energy densities than nuclear power.

 

[Realm]

Yeah, no one is breaking the laws of physics. They are doing things we know are possible in theory, but have never been able to do due to the insane energy requirements - possibly higher energy densities than nuclear power.

Which again are just assumptions lacking actual evidence and calculations.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Yeah, no one is breaking the laws of physics. They are doing things we know are possible in theory, but have never been able to do due to the insane energy requirements - possibly higher energy densities than nuclear power.

That's correct, and Realm is wrong. Here's why:

1.) General relativity (GR) permits both positive and negative gravitational fields. In fact the negative gravitational field aspect of GR that nearly everyone said was impossible for five decades, is now the mainstream explanation for the action of dark energy that's accelerating all of the galaxy clusters apart.

2.) Bondi and Alcubierre and others have expressed the mathematics of gravitational dipole acceleration within the context of GR in peer-reviewed academic papers that are widely accepted as valid within the physics community. There is controversy about the idea for other reasons, but those reasons fall outside of the scope of GR itself, and generally involve the positive energy theorem - but Paranjape proved that this theorem is inapplicable to our accelerating universe back in 2012-2013.

3.) Cosmic inflation is a central pillar of the Big Bang theory, and it was an extremely superluminal expansion of spacetime, which is also a negative gravitational field effect akin to dark energy.

4.) It's not simply an issue of harnessing extremely high energy densities, but yes our current theory does seem to demand extremely high positive and negative energy densities. On the other hand, we don't yet have a phenomenological understanding of the coupling mechanism between mass-energy and spacetime; we only know the observed quantitative coupling constant. So we may find a breakthrough when we understand this coupling mechanism.

I like the loadstone vs. electromagnet analogy: right now we're in thee same position with gravity, that we were in 500 years ago with regard to magnetism. We only know that if you bring more "stuff" together (like loadstone or mass-energy), you can make a stronger field, and we can calculate exactly how much stronger the field will be with more "stuff" gathered into one place. But once we understood the electric nature of the magnetic field, we could generate vastly more powerful magnetic fields using a small device with a modest magnitude of electric current. I think the same will happen with gravitation. And I argue that this must in fact be possible, because these anomalous aerial vehicles appear to be exploiting gravitational field propulsion (all of the performance characteristics match perfectly), and if those devices were using the energy equivalent of a celestial body, then they'd wipe out all life on this planet with their first field containment failure or other accident in the vicinity of the planet.

And if history is any indication, once we understand how to synthesize a useful artificial gravitational field without exploiting extravagant energy densities, most physicists are going to think "that's so simple - why didn't I think of that!"

 

[DROBNJAK]

Also in the news, interview of Harry Reid, where he tells some interesting details:
Harry Reid on What the Government Knows About UFOs

@Realm that was a hell of an good article.

Hey guys, instead of splitting hears and beating each other over head with futile arguing, why we don't go to that archive mentioned in the article and start reading these articles for with US gov. paid $11,000,000?

@Realm do you know if that Begalow's archive is accessible anywhere online?

 

[Realm]

Hey guys, instead of splitting hears and beating each other over head with futile arguing

It would futile and off-topic to once again repeat how Morrison is distorting facts to support his anti-gravitic dreams. At the same time, when it comes to the actual videos TTSA has published, the situation is really simple: they don't show anything that would support any claims of anti-gravity.

One video shows a small relatively slow target, which is consistent with a bird or a balloon. Another seems to be consistent with jet engine and exhausts. Third shows a blob that has acceleration that is hard to quantify due to lack of distance information, but it doesn't look extraordinary. TTSA has just made a blanket statement that these videos would somehow show some need for anti-gravity, which is no wonder, since they are basically just repeating what Puthoff has been trying to sell for quite some time, with or without videos. In reality, they haven't been able to provide such evidence, and it's really an embarrassment for them to have made such claims based on their faulty assumptions. They could as well have claimed that birds can fly because of anti-gravity.

do you know if that Begalow's archive is accessible anywhere online?

As I already commented in that earlier message, it's unclear what Reid even means, and his comments sound hypocritical at best:

So is he talking about just any papers that have something to do with UFOs, or those that have something to do with the AATIP? Didn't he just arrange $22 million of public money to be spent investigating those reports? Did they get real results and pick out the good stuff? Shouldn't the press and public get the results from that $22 million of their money, instead of him complaining why the press haven't investigated data they are not even given?

Bigelow's archive most likely isn't accessible anywhere, and the press is currently trying to figure out whether they can be even accessed with a FOIA, or if Reid just spent $22 million, in secrecy, to make an archive that is inaccessible to everybody. With that consideration, Reid's comments are shameful.

 

[Realm]

Here's an exercise for those who are interested in trying to find some additional information about these Gimbal and Go fast clips without waiting for possibly a year or two for possible FOIA results (John Greenewald estimated it could take that long), if not for other reason but to get to the bottom of those claims made by the TTSA.

Christopher Mellon stated the following in his latest interview:

after my op-ed appeared with video, I got a call from an individual retired from the Defense Department and who had worked on these issues and I asked him, I said do you have any context for that video, do you have any details? He told me that was one of two videos that came into the Pentagon from the commander of a carrier battle group and these are his words, he described it as a plea for help, end quote.

Since he already distorted the Nimitz event to his own sensationalized version with his attempted fearmongering, I don't really put much trust to his words, but assuming it is in fact true that those videos came from a carrier battle group, instead of it being yet another mix up with the Nimitz event for example, it seems to imply we should be able to find an aircraft carrier that was somewhere near Florida in 2015.

I did some research, and I believe the list of possible carriers and possible date ranges for them is rather short:

USS Bush Jan 1 – Jun 17
USS Roosevelt Jan 1 – Mar 11
USS Truman May 22 – Nov 15
USS Eisenhower Sep 4 – Dec 31

Other than those, they do not seem to have been anywhere close to Florida, or even East Coast, or have been at port under maintenance. The challenge is to try to figure out if those ranges can be restricted further (or if you can find something outside of them that I have missed). I already have some more detailed info about their whereabouts. Interestingly, there's not too much overlap in those. Knowing the date could already identify the ship, and identifying the ship would at least halve the possible date range. If we could rule out enough options, that could provide basis for filing FOIAs, like they have been done for the ships that were involved in the Nimitz event.

 

[DROBNJAK]

It would futile and off-topic to once again repeat how Morrison is distorting facts to support his anti-gravitic dreams. At the same time, when it comes to the actual videos TTSA has published, the situation is really simple: they don't show anything that would support any claims of anti-gravity.

Yeah, you got geometry 99.99% right. But there was much bigger context. If pilots' accounts were taken into account, situation was much more complex and geometry wouldn't be enough. Object maneuvered towards F-18's six o'clock, it disappeared over horizon in a couple of seconds, all 4 pilots were confident it was a craft, not a bird, original video was could had been much longer, objects were tracked on radar for days prior the video clip etc. Even if some participants got their distances wrong, there are still other things.

It would futile and off-topic to once again repeat how Morrison is distorting facts to support his anti-gravitic dreams.

I tend to agree with Thomas. He is not hiding that his viewpoints have speculative edge. To make progress we need to brake the set rules. But, constructive criticism is always welcome. Why don't you start a separate thread, get all the Thomas's main points and criticize them, in a sober and rational way, like you analyzed HUD geometry. It's always interesting to hear both sides.

How good is your General Relativity and Electrodynamics knowledge?

 

[Realm]

Yeah, you got geometry 99.99% right. But there was much bigger context. If pilots' accounts were taken into account, situation was much more complex and geometry wouldn't be enough. Object maneuvered towards F-18's six o'clock, it disappeared over horizon in a couple of seconds, all 4 pilots were confident it was a craft, not a bird etc. Even if some participants got their distances wrong, there are still other things.

The Nimitz event is the only one that has such pilot accounts. On those other ones they are just expressing they don't know what they are seeing on their screens. And even in the Nimitz case, there's no guarantee the object on the screen is the same Fravor and Slaight saw. The video was taken some time after their encounter, in a different place. The video itself doesn't show anything extraordinary. TTSA has claimed these videos would be evidence in support of such claims, and that simply doesn't seem to be true.

When it comes to what Fravor saw, we really don't know, but there's no reason to make assumptions it had to be something like anti-gravity. It could just as well have been a giant fishing lure that was hanging from a mothership somewhere high up, with highly transparent fishing line, and they just reeled it in fast. Maybe there's another planet with fish for which that works.

The point I'm really trying to make is this: the focus should be in trying to figure out if any of these cases is really something extraordinary, or alien, instead of trying to make guesses about technology when it's not even clear if any sort of technology was involved. Jumping to premature conclusions is one big reason why there's so much nonsense floating around with all of this.

I tend to agree with Thomas.

Prepare to be disappointed then, 'cause he's rarely right.

He is not hiding that his viewpoints have speculative edge.

He is constantly trying to claim his speculations have the sort of scientific support they don't actually have. General relativity for example is in no way supporting claims of anti-gravity. It just doesn't prevent such solutions. The same is true for all sorts of speculative ideas.

Why don't you start a separate thread, get all the Thomas's main points and criticize them, in a sober and rational way

I have already done enough of that, but Thomas is a true believer who doesn't listen to voices of reason. There's no point repeating stuff that has been already said. In reality, we just have to wait that real sensible physicist will make progress with the theoretical foundations, which will ultimately decide whether something like anti-gravity is possible. Fringe physicists and pseudo-scientists like Puthoff are highly unlikely to find the needle in the haystack, and taking their words at face value, like the TTSA seem to have done, will just lead to embarrassment and ridicule, and won't in any way help the efforts of making this a topic the media or public at large would take seriously.

 

[MrBeliever]

I'm content with not having closure right away. But let's face it: nothing about the story is interesting; only the ramifications are. That's why we're talking about them. I would rather discuss them and enhance my ability to judge future claims that will be made, rather than to stop here and ignore the possibilities. I want to hear the opinions of anyone who has an original take on the story, and I really hope fear of embarrassment and ridicule is not a thing here on a paranormal forum.

We're all adults here, of course no one is taking anything at face value.

 

[Realm]

I really hope fear of embarrassment and ridicule is not a thing here on a paranormal forum.

Those are the things the TTSA will be facing, and due to the way they have been in the headlines lately, those will be applied to this whole subject matter in general. Can you imagine headlines about anti-gravitic birds that are threat to national security? I can, and we might very well see headlines like that, at least if the media actually notices how they have been mislead and how they have mislead their readers because of that.

Their (and those who don't want to have this subject ridiculed) only hope of avoiding the backlash is that the media loses interest before realizing that. TTSA has certainly already lost most of the momentum, which is their advantage at this stage. They do not even seem to dominate UFO related forums and social media in the way it was a couple of months ago.

Just count the directly TTSA related threads on the front page of Reddit UFOs for example, and there aren't too many of them anymore:
The UFO reddit • r/UFOs
A while back some people there were complaining how there was almost nothing else.

We're all adults here, of course no one is taking anything at face value.

If only that was true.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

It would futile and off-topic to once again repeat how Morrison is distorting facts to support his anti-gravitic dreams.

The flagrant ignorance of the wannabe debunker crowd is simply astounding.

The possibility of negative mass and its stunning gravitational field propulsion implications have been featured in the mainstream academic literature for over 60 years. And today, neither the cosmic acceleration attributed to “dark energy” nor the pivotal cosmic inflation era of the Big Bang can be explained without negative gravitation, which is the key requisite component for a gravitational field propulsion mechanism.

And gravitational field propulsion is also the only known physically viable explanation for the behavior of anomalous aerial devices.

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.

My position on this subject is backed up by a litany of credible peer-reviewed academic papers published in reputable physics journals. Here's a small sample of the mainstream academic literature that's available on the subject:

“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
https://mlpol.net/vx/src/1510434945245-0.pdf

“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
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23219

“The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Miguel Alcubierre. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0009013.pdf

“Motivations for antigravity in General Relativity,” G Chardin, Hyperfine Interactions, 1996
http://cds.cern.ch/record/311392/files/SCAN-9610018.pdf

“CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity.” M. Villata, Europhysics Letters, 2011
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4937.pdf

"Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum?" Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, Astrophysics and Space Science, 2011
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf

“Metamaterial-based model of the Alcubierre warp drive,” Smolyaninov, Physical Review B, 2011
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.5663.pdf

"'Dark energy’ in the Local Void,' M. Villata, Astrophysics and Space Science, 2012
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3810.pdf

“Alcubierre warp drive: On the matter of matter,” B. McMonigal, G.F. Lewis, P O'Byrne, Physical Review D, 2012
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5708.pdf

“On negative mass,” Jonathan Belletête and M. B. Paranjape, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 2013
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1566.pdf

“Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time,” Saoussen Mbarek and M. B. Paranjape, Physical Review D, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.1457.pdf

"Physical interpretation of antigravity," Itzhak Bars and A. James, Physical Review D, 2016
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05128.pdf

Anyone opposed to the notion of gravitational field propulsion who can’t provide a similarly comprehensive citation list to refute these respected and provocative peer-reviewed academic physics papers (and nobody can because that body of literature doesn’t exist – all attempts to discredit the notion of negative gravitation have been overturned both theoretically and observationally at this point), should probably spend more time studying and less time exposing their staggering ignorance of this subject.

In fact at this point it's safe to say that negative gravitation is and always has been a fundamental feature of physical law within our universe, and listening to boisterously unenlightened people like Realm is the reason why we were caught off guard by the dark energy observations in the first place. We should have been expecting to find it, because it's not prohibited by our astonishingly successful general theory of relativity, and as pioneering Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann loved to say: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

The flagrant ignorance of the wannabe debunker crowd is simply astounding.

The possibility of negative mass and its stunning gravitational field propulsion implications have been featured in the mainstream academic literature for over 60 years. And today, neither the cosmic acceleration attributed to “dark energy” nor the pivotal cosmic inflation era of the Big Bang can be explained without negative gravitation, which is the key requisite component for a gravitational field propulsion mechanism.

And gravitational field propulsion is also the only known and physically viable explanation for the behavior of anomalous aerial devices.

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.

My position on this subject is backed up by a litany of credible peer-reviewed academic papers published in reputable physics journals. Here's a small sample of the mainstream academic literature that's available on the subject:

“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
https://mlpol.net/vx/src/1510434945245-0.pdf

“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
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.23219

“The warp drive: hyper-fast travel within general relativity,” Miguel Alcubierre. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 1994
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0009013.pdf

“Motivations for antigravity in General Relativity,” G Chardin, Hyperfine Interactions, 1996
http://cds.cern.ch/record/311392/files/SCAN-9610018.pdf

“CPT symmetry and antimatter gravity in general relativity.” M. Villata, Europhysics Letters, 2011
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1103.4937.pdf

"Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum?" Dragan Slavkov Hajdukovic, Astrophysics and Space Science, 2011
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1106/1106.0847.pdf

“Metamaterial-based model of the Alcubierre warp drive,” Smolyaninov, Physical Review B, 2011
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1009/1009.5663.pdf

"'Dark energy’ in the Local Void,' M. Villata, Astrophysics and Space Science, 2012
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3810.pdf

“Alcubierre warp drive: On the matter of matter,” B. McMonigal, G.F. Lewis, P O'Byrne, Physical Review D, 2012
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5708.pdf

“On negative mass,” Jonathan Belletête and M. B. Paranjape, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 2013
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.1566.pdf

“Negative mass bubbles in de Sitter space-time,” Saoussen Mbarek and M. B. Paranjape, Physical Review D, 2014
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.1457.pdf

"Physical interpretation of antigravity," Itzhak Bars and A. James, Physical Review D, 2016
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1511.05128.pdf

Anyone opposed to the notion of gravitational field propulsion who can’t provide a similarly comprehensive citation list to refute these respected and provocative peer-reviewed academic physics papers (and nobody can because that body of literature doesn’t exist – all attempts to discredit the notion of negative gravitation have been overturned both theoretically and observationally at this point), should probably spend more time studying and less time exposing their staggering ignorance of this subject.

In fact at this point it's safe to say that negative gravitation is and always has been a fundamental feature of physical law within our universe, and listening to boisterously unenlightened people like Realm is the reason why we were caught off guard by the dark energy observations in the first place. We should have been expecting to find it, because it's not prohibited by our astonishingly successful general theory of relativity, and as pioneering Nobel laureate physicist Murray Gell-Mann loved to say: "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

Wow, Brother @Thomas R Morrison , you have really outdone yourself here! What a tour de force of an argument which then completely self-destructs at the very last line.

You spent the entire message assailing the ignorance, stupidity and unenlightenment of skeptardal debunkers like Realm and his ilk, and yet to use the criterion established by Murray Gell-Mann’s statement, it is clear that you have established the fact that ignorance, stupidity and unenlightenment are not forbidden. Therefore, they are compulsory. And if they are compulsory, then all of us partake of ignorance, stupidity and unenlightenment, including yourself!

You vividly express the wisdom of the mythical Gooney Bird which is a winged creature that flies in ever decreasing concentric spirals until it flies up its own asshole and disappears!

Poof!

 

[Realm]

And gravitational field propulsion is also the only known and physically viable explanation for the behavior of anomalous aerial devices.

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.

That seemed to be once again the anti-gravitic equivalent of "of course my god exists!" Thanks once again for proving my point of you distorting facts, as back in the real world, speculations on paper do not constitute evidence, and nobody actually knows if your dreams can be realized.

But since you are once again parroting those puthoffian claims, augmented with a hefty dose of psychological projection and your typical fallacies, how about actually stating which of those videos the TTSA has published actually shows the need for anti-gravity?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Thanks once again for proving my point of you distorting facts, as back in the real world, speculations on paper do not constitute evidence, and nobody actually knows if your dreams can be realized.

So you dismiss the entire field of theoretical physics including the prestigious journal Physical Review D as "newfangled book learnin' that darn't mean nuthin'." Good to know. Lol.

And I didn't "distort" the facts; I actually provided them for anyone to see. Which is whole lot more than you've done, blustering and blithering away all full of hot vapid bravado without offering a single citation to support your position. A person's position isn't "akin to a religious belief OmGzor!" when they're backed up by mainstream peer-reviewed academic physics papers. Yours is the baseless and blindly ignorant belief system that flies in the face of science and reason, and I proved it. You lose. Thanks for playing.

But since you are once again parroting those puthoffian claims, augmented with a hefty dose of psychological projection and your typical fallacies, how about actually stating which of those videos the TTSA has published actually shows the need for anti-gravity?

I've already unambiguously stated in several posts here - that you've read, that I see little to no scientific/intelligence value to the extremely brief, derezzed, and uncompelling video clips that the DoD has deigned to share with us lowly plebes out here in the public sector.

But the pilot testimony in the Nimitz case and countless other sighting events, including my own, clearly include the key performance characteristics of a gravitational field propulsion system:

1.) silent hovering with no atmospheric turbulence

2.) dramatic accelerations that appear to defy inertia with no indication of reaction mass-energy / propellant

3.) hypersonic motion without a sonic boom

4.) transmedium travel between space/atmosphere/water

Offer an alternative theory of operation that predicts these four signature performance capabilities commonly associated with anomalous aerial device sightings. You can't, because it doesn't exist. Gravitational field propulsion is the only viable and theoretically well-established motive principle known to physics that predicts all four. That makes it our only credible working hypothesis to explain the operation of these objects.

So I've got a viable working hypothesis backed up by dozens of peer-reviewed academic papers written by many of the most brilliant minds in the history of physics, and you've got nothing. Except disdain, and tired old rhetorical attacks devoid of significance or substance.

 

[Realm]

Yours is the baseless and blindly ignorant belief system that flies in the face of science and reason, and I proved it. You lose. Thanks for playing.

How childish of you. But since you once again seem to believe you have "proved" something, how about showing the paper that actually proves anti-gravity exists and in a way any craft could use it.

I've already unambiguously stated in several posts here - that you've read, that I see little to no scientific/intelligence value to the extremely brief, derezzed, and uncompelling video clips that the DoD has deigned to share with us lowly plebes out here in the public sector.

Good, so you admit the TTSA hasn't released actual evidence that would support such claims. You just repeat their claims regardless of that.

And by the way, it was Elizondo who arranged those videos to be released, and he has been marketing them as something that should convince us, so you can direct your DoD comments to him.

Offer an alternative theory of operation that predicts these four signature performance capabilities commonly associated with anomalous aerial device sightings.

Offer an actual concrete case that is at least somehow verified (as it no doubt lacks proper evidence anyway) that would need such explanations. Pick your best, instead of repeating old fallacies by assuming unconnected events would be the same phenomena and could somehow be summed together or something.

As for the Nimitz event, I already gave an alternative theory of alien fishing lures, which fits the description extremely well. It disturbed the water, as ET was dipping it. It moved slowly and erratically over the water, as any lures that hung from a long line. It moved down fast, because of gravity, and up, because of reeling in, especially when the jet took the maneuver that could have cut the line. We didn't see the fisheraliens, as their ship was above the radar range. You are just so close-minded that you haven't even considered perfectly rational explanations like this and others.

You can't, because it doesn't exist.

Let's see if I need to repeat that of your evidence for anti-gravity.