We may be faking a UFO situation: Difference between revisions

One of the questions about UFOs that needs to be asked, and that I don’t hear much about, is: “Has the US government built fake UFOs?”

UFO people are so focused on whether there are real UFOs that they don’t push hard enough on this question.

Allow me to share a thought or two.

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

When I first realized I was totally wrong about UFO/UAP, I was shocked by how many folks have very similar stories about recovered crashes of very similar advanced vehicles.

It was mind blowing in 2 ways.

A) We have real crashed vehicles. And/Or B) We built fake alien vehicles.

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

At this point I’m reasonably sure there are things that look like cool alien vehicle in some hangers. But I also grew up near Hollywood and remember super cool looking fake space cars visible off the Hollywood freeway.

So: does anyone have stories of building fake UFOs for USG?

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

As you likely guessed, all the photos in this thread are fake military equipment. The airbase is totally fake. The dummy tanks are often inflated on the battlefield. The fake tank pieces are bolted on to real cars.

Q: Did we build fake UFOs in places like Wright-Patterson AFB?

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

After studying this issue for 2yrs, I’m pretty convinced that there ARE wild looking vehicles in secret high security locations. But I also find NO SIGN OF OUR TOP PHYSICISTS. That is a huge red flag. If you had fake UFOs, you would have a puzzle for physics: What is the science?

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

A true recovered interstellar craft would be like LHC or LIGO data: potential scientific data for physics beyond the Standard Model and General Relativity.

But if the crafts are fake, you would be crazy to let the A-team physicists near them. It would blow up in your face.

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

So my ignorant question is this: are there stories of building fake UFOs for sites in Nevada? Ohio? Are there fake retrieval teams? To what extent does faking military equipment spill into faking a UFOgasm for decades?

Because there are too many very similar craft stories.

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

So, at this point, the stories of craft kept at secret locations is most likely to be true in my opinion. But it is also true that all the top physics talent that was working only semi-covertly on suspicious gravity projects left by the early 1970s. So any craft may be faked.

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

Either way, it’s a big deal. Everything changed in the early 70s. It’s impossible to say how much. The moment the Mansfield amendment came in, physics began to stagnate. And “Quantum Gravity” destroyed our culture of science. We don’t even whisper about its “Anti-Gravity” origin.

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

So to sum up: there do *appear* to be craft. But advanced armies all build dummy weapons.

Q1: Do we have any Fakes?
Q2: Do we have only Fakes?
Q3: Why do we talk almost *exclusively* about Technology and not new Post-GR/SM science if there are *any* real interstellar craft?

🙏

4:13 PM · Nov 10, 2022

Note Added: many readers are making wild inferences about me talking about flying fakes. I was very clear that this was about apparent crafts on the ground and in Hangars in Nevada, Ohio & elsewhere.

Wild or bad inference patterns will get you blocked. I don’t have time. Thx.

5:16 PM · Nov 10, 2022

John Greenewald, Jr.

@blackvaultcom

You would think Bob Lazar would jump at this to finally prove himself on the grand stage of @joerogan with @EricRWeinstein there eager to listen.

Maybe @JeremyCorbell and/or @g_knapp will encourage Lazar, given their belief in his story.

If Lazar will not, then why not?

12:37 PM · May 3, 2023

Almost a month ago I accepted @joerogan’s invitation to a dinner and/or podcast w/ Bob Lazar. Yesterday on May 1st, I got a call from Joe. He’s fully aware of my willingness to have a scientific interchange on Lazar’s claims around “Gravity Waves A & B”. No gotchas. Just science.

10:05 PM · May 2, 2023

George Knapp

@g_knapp

4:06 AM · May 4, 2023

@g_knapp @blackvaultcom @joerogan @JeremyCorbell I clearly do not understand the historic issues between the members of this community.

7:27 AM · May 5, 2023

Steven Greenstreet

@MiddleOfMayhem

I don't think that's the only thing you do not understand.

3:10 PM · May 6, 2023

https://nypost.com/2023/03/21/ufo-believing-pentagon-bosses-missed-spy-craft-for-years/

Ooh. Say more?

1:48 PM · May 7, 2023

Steven Greenstreet

@MiddleOfMayhem

Consider, for a moment, that the central "UFO" story of last 6 years was based on a series of lies and deception.

That a relatively small group of UFO and paranormal activists (including but not exclusive to Knapp/Corbell) have duped the media and Congress into validating their faith-based beliefs (or monetary promotions).

That nearly everyone has gotten this all wrong.

Eric, have you heard THIS side of the story yet?

4:10 PM · May 7, 2023

Uh. Have you not been listening to what I’ve said? That we may be faking a UFO situation? Or that we may be covering up the duplicity of our own “Operation Fortitude” type program? I honestly don’t understand you. Keep going though.

8:16 PM · May 7, 2023

Something big is going on. It involves Spying. Classified R&D. Deception. Religion. Physics.

But I’m neither invested in the “Little Green Men” nor the “It’s obviously all BS” crowds. I simply don’t understand what I’m looking at. Why turn everything into a battle? I don’t get it.

8:20 PM · May 7, 2023

The title of this @joerogan clip from #1945 is literally: "We might be faking a UFO situation."

OBVIOUSLY.

As I have said before, "When we do something secret and cool, we generally pair it with something fake." This is standard operating proceedure (e.g. Operation Overlord was D-Day/Operation Fortitude was a Faked Norway Invasion). This is what 'Covert' means. Covert means 'Deniable'. Not secret, but *deniable*.

1:50 AM · Jun 12, 2025

New York Post

@nypost

BOMBSHELL: Pentagon created fake UFO evidence, promoted false alien stories https://nypost.com/video/bombshell-pentagon-created-fake-ufo-evidence-promoted-false-alien-stories/

12:16 AM · Jun 12, 2025

Imho, This @nypost article is **NOT** the big story. That is coming.

CLAIM: We will find that there is a minimum of *one* pair of fake/real programs and that it is much much bigger than the hazing ritual being reported. But, more importantly, there are likely many more such pairs of REAL/FAKE programs in this area.

Yes: we fake UFOs. And yes, there is a REAL Aerospace program that hides under cover of the FAKE UFO program.

But this is not about an Air Force Hazing ritual. This isn't a prank. This is a whole life ruining program where we will find that we regularly destroy the minds of our own people with disinformation and threats to their mental health and families. Military heroes. Scientists. IC spooks.

The real FAKE programs are bigger than this. And the REAL program is also bigger than just conventional Aerospace. I wish to mark this claim now: eventually, this is going to be about the actual SCIENCE of Physics.

I don't think Quantum Gravity as it is practiced is a real research program. It is the obvious candidate for the "inhibitor" that, when added to research, stagnated physics...and it didn't come out of some longstanding program from the birth of quantum mechanics. It came out of nowhere right before we stopped making progress on the Lagrangian of the real world.

1:50 AM · Jun 12, 2025

This is going to explain what @pmarca keeps talking about with @bariweiss, @bhorowitz and others: we took whole areas of physics off line after the Manhattan project and that was *NOT* limited to just the Nuclear Physics of nuclear warheads.

1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025

CLAIM: These FAKE and REAL programs will keep going and extend to "The Golden Age of General Relativity". We will eventually learn that the mysterious philathropists Roger Babson and Agnew Bahnson who funded Louis Witten and Bryce deWitt (respectively), along with others were (obviously) NationalSecurity cutouts. They were real people giving cover to some major Post-Manhattan physics thing.

From Australian Intelligence (circa 1971) we have this which I both believe and hypothesized LONG before finding it:

1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025

It's time to come clean. The disclosure is coming. One way or the other. A so-called "Limited Hangout" is impossible in 2025. This is not going to work. There is too much information out here already:

1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025

Claim: We are going to learn that just as public work on chain reaction physics mysteriously vanished during the Manhattan Project, research in fundamental physics changed character TWICE. Once in the late 1960s-early 1970s with the Mansfield Amendment, after the quark model and spontaneous symmetry breaking and then more dramatically around 1983-1984 shortly after the catastrophic disclosures of Howard Borland and John Aristotle Philips to handle the "Streisand Effect" problem, which had no such name at the time.

Eventually we learned why progress immediately stalled in physics due to secrecy and the building of the atomic bombs. We have an obvious second candidate and we aren't allowed to ask questions about why we aren't getting back to real physics in open universities. The dangerous and powerful kind that can build prosperity, weapons, energy, travel, propulsion and insight.

1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025

We have now found out that we were lying to our own people. As I predicted to you all.

I predict that this is **way** more interesting. This revelation about the lies is just the beginning. And it may have nothing whatsoever to do with NHI or flying saucers.

But either way, let us be bold enough to ask for the *full* lie. About our own history. Our science. Our Intelligence Community. Our Defense Contractors.

It's our country after all. At least supposedly...

🙏

1:51 AM · Jun 12, 2025

Michael Shermer: you are quite incautious about what I say. Your world is dominated by careful scientists and wild eyed conspiracy theorists. The idea of wild eyed scientists (e.g. Francis Collins, Gerald Bull, Peter Daszak, Edward Teller) and careful conspiracy theorists (e.g. Seymour Hersh, William Davidon, Jack Raper, Gary Webb, etc) doesn’t occur to you nearly enough.

Roughly speaking I claimed that the U.S. government was, at a minimum, faking UFOs and that there is ample evidence that we FAKE exactly such things (which I documented) and destroy our own people’s sanity, reputations, careers and lives on a regular basis playing the “That sounds like a conspiracy theory!!” game.

Which is *exactly* what just happened in UFO land. We admitted we did what I claimed we were likely doing when I was on Rogan.

And what I claim about our failed 40 year “Quantum Gravity” and “String Theory” program is simply that it completely disabled a potentially dangerous activity: successfully discovering and sharing the power of new physics in open universities with foreign nationals of rival nations well beyond the Manhattan Project era nuclear physics. Is that deliberate? It sure as hell would be a lot less suspicious if we ever had the string theorist/quantum gravity people at the same conference head to head with their rivals and detractors. Wouldn’t it?

I’m sorry this seems crazy to you. But the U.S. government makes shit up. It’s called “Covert Operations”. In laymen’s terms: we conspire to gaslight our own people. And we do it a lot around national security.

Now would you please consider that you are carrying water for the very people that do this particularly vile form of reputational wet work? Is that what you want to do??

Enough.

I was writing about the danger of a manipulated CPI in 1996 (now admitted). The fake NSF labor shortage (now discredited) in the 1980s. Biden’s cognitive crisis for all 4 years of his presidency (now known to all). The fake racism charges against the Wuhan Lab leak theory (ahem).

Etc. See the pattern?

Michael: you do not get to do this cheaply. You live in a simplified world of good rational people and bad madmen. I live in a different world and the scourge of that world is the shitty debunker making fun of the scientists with the courage to say “Uh, ya know the mainstream position just doesn’t add up.”

Conspiracy is everywhere. And those of us who are disciplined in talking about them do not need you telling us what is possible based on heuristics.

I don’t think our secret federal scientists are in possession of the final theory at all. I have never said “We have anti-gravity.”

Stop stirring the pot. You are not the amazing Randi and I am not a spoon bender. I debunk debunkers. Deal with that first.

If you want to go head to head with my track record, let me know. I would LOVE that.

If not: be more careful.

Like a scientist. Thanks.

No hard feelings.

Michael Shermer

@michaelshermer

Dear @EricRWeinstein The history of technology strongly indicates that UAP-type "anti-gravity" tech cannot be Earthly. Here's my explanation of why from my forthcoming book Truth: What it is, How to Find it, Why it Still Matters:

An alternative to ordinary explanations for UAP sightings is that they represent Russian or Chinese assets, drones, spy planes, or some related but as yet unknown (to us) technology capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all known physics and aerodynamics. Pilots and observers describe “multiple anomalous aerial vehicles” accelerating from 80,000 feet down to sea level in seconds, or making instantaneous turns and even sudden stops, or shooting off horizontally at hypersonic speed, breaking the sound barrier but not making a sonic boom, which should be impossible, not to mention that it would kill the pilots instantly. And these vehicles appear to be able to do so with no apparent jet engine or visible exhaust plume, suggesting that they’re using some anti-gravity technology unavailable to even the most advanced experimental programs worked on at DARPA. When 60 Minutes’ correspondent Bill Whitaker asked former Navy pilot Lieutenant Ryan Graves, who had seen with his own eyes UAPs buzzing around Virginia Beach in 2014, “could it be Russian or Chinese technology?” Graves responded “I don’t see why not,” adding that “if these were tactical jets from another country that were hangin’ out up there, it would be a massive issue.” Top Gun navy pilot and commander of the F/A-18F squadron on the USS Nimitz, David Fravor, told 60 Minutes “I don’t know who’s building it, who’s got the technology, who’s got the brains. But there’s something out there that was better than our airplane.”

The hypothesis that the objects are terrestrial and developed by some other nation or corporation, or some genius working in isolation, is highly unlikely, given what we know about the evolution of technological innovation, which is cumulative from the past. In his seminal work The Evolution of Technology, the historian George Basalla busts the myth of the inventor working in isolation, dreaming up new and innovative technologies out of sheer creative genius (the ping of the light bulb flashing brilliantly in the mind). All technologies, Basalla demonstrates, are developed out of either pre-existing artifacts (artificial objects) or already existing naturfacts (organic objects): “Any new thing that appears in the made world is based on some object already in existence,” he explains. But some artifact had to be first—an invention that comes from no other invention, ex nihilo as it were. If this is the case then that artifact, Basalla shows, likely came from a naturfact. (Barbed wire is a famous example. Its inventor, Michael Kelly, in 1868 explained: “My invention [imparts] to fences of wire a character approximating to that of a thorn-hedge. I prefer to designate the fence so produced as a thorny fence.” )

In How Innovation Works, Matt Ridley demonstrates through numerous examples that innovation is an incremental, bottom-up, fortuitous process that is a result of the human habit of exchange, rather than an orderly, top-down process developing according to a plan. Innovation is different from invention, Ridley argues, because “it is the turning of inventions into things of practical and affordable use to people that makes innovation possible.” Innovation, he continues, “is always a collective, collaborative phenomenon, not a matter of lonely genius. It is gradual, serendipitous, recombinant, inexorable, contagious, experimental and unpredictable. It happens mainly in just a few parts of the world at any one time.” Examples include steam engines, jet engines, search engines, airships, vaping, vaccines, cuisine, antibiotics, mosquito nets, turbines, propellers, fertilizer, computers, dogs, farming, fire, genetic engineering, gene editing, container shipping, railways, cars, safety rules, wheeled suitcases, mobile phones, powered flight, chlorinated water, toilets, vacuum cleaners, shale gas, the telegraph, radio, social media, block chain, the sharing economy, artificial intelligence, and hyperloop tubes.

It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation, or lone individual—no matter how smart and creative—could have invented and innovated new physics and aerodynamics to create an aircraft of any sort that could be, essentially, centuries ahead of all known present technologies. That is not how innovation works. It would be as if the United States were using rotary phones while the Russians or Chinese had smart phones, or we were flying biplanes while they were flying stealth fighter jets, or we were sending letters and memos via fax machine while they were emailing files via the Internet, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.

Consider the Manhattan Project, arguably the most secretive program in US history to date, leading to the successful development of atomic bombs in 1945. The Russians had an atomic bomb by 1949. How? They stole our plans through a German theoretical physicist and spy named Klaus Fuchs. Modern tech companies like Apple, Google, Intel, and Microsoft are notoriously secretive about their inventions, forcing employees to sign Non Disclosure Agreements (NDEs), enforcing extensive security protocols for their offices, and protecting intellectual property rights through countless lawsuits. And yet…all of our computers, smart phones, computer chips, and software programs are essentially the same, or at least in close parallel development. Countries and companies steal, copy, back engineer, and innovate each other’s ideas and technologies, leaving no one company or country very far ahead or behind any other.

11:53 PM · Jun 22, 2025

5:57 AM · Jun 23, 2025

We found out that I was correct: we *were* faking a UFO situation. At a minimum.

Let’s go again:

“We may be faking a String Theory Situation”

“We may be faking a Quantum Gravity revolution.”

“We may be lying that all the competitors to String theory are all bad science or PseudoScience.”

You want to go short Michael? Give me the generous odds that come from your study of conspiracy theorists.

You don’t know enough physics to short me at size with 100,000 or even 100 to 1. Just check my record before you bet the house.

Give it a rest. Or give me odds and terms.

6:19 AM · Jun 23, 2025

I would like to talk to @MickWest and @michaelshermer and @francis_collins and @neiltyson and @seanmcarroll and @nytimes about the role of debunking and discrediting professionals who do not buy into narratives that are later found to be cover stories about national interest.

3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025

Marc Caputo

@MarcACaputo

For the first time since JFK’s assassination nearly 62 years ago, the CIA tacitly admitted Thursday that an agent specializing in psychological warfare, George Joannides, ran an operation that came into contact with Lee Harvey Oswald before the killing. https://www.axios.com/2025/07/05/cia-agent-oswald-kennedy-assassination

12:04 PM · Jul 5, 2025

We have a COVID=Wet Market narrative.
We have an Inflation and CPI narrative.
We have a Quantum Gravity narrative.
We have a Vaccine Narrative.
We have “Americans suck at STEM”.
We have a “Settled Science” narrative.
We have a “Peer Review” narrative.
We had a “Great Moderation” narrative.
We have “Independent Journalism”.
We have a “Disgraced Financier” story.
We have an “Aerospace and UFO” opera.

It’s all one thing that cannot be named:

National Interest “Managed Reality.”

3:38 PM · Jul 5, 2025

We need to talk about what debunking was before it became “Covert influence operations”, “Image Cheapneing”‘and personal destruction warfare.

So let’s talk.

3:41 PM · Jul 5, 2025

Are you buying into Anna Paulina Luna's narrative regarding Joannides?

Or Morley's? Posners? Ratcliffe's?

Which one do you pick, and why?

4:25 PM · Jul 5, 2025

This is part of the problem with debunking.

You see, I don’t know what Covid is. Is it a science project? A miraculous spontaneous mutation? A bioweapon leak?

I don’t know.

But what I do know was that there was TREMENDOUS pressure to say something false about the Wuhan Labs.

Likewise here: I don’t know what happened in Dallas. What I feel confidence in is that we have been lying about telling all we know about what happened in Dallas.

Same with UFOs. What do I know? Very little. But what little I do know is that too many grownups in Govt are talking about something real. That real thing could be a fake program. Or cover for physics research. Or many things.

But the debunking thing has a different energy. I appreciate all you do to explain videos and sightings that have genuinely prosaic explanations. Truly.

What I don’t believe at all is that there is no use of UFO SAPs by the USG. I think we create SAPs and we ruin people’s lives around them when good folks can’t let go of the fact that they saw or experienced or interacted with something we know a lot about.

That’s my issue. Discrediting behavior targeted on individuals to protect programs with claims of national interest.

5:21 PM · Jul 5, 2025

What exactly are you suggesting with this "different energy"?

That I'm just not polite enough?

Or that I'm part of a disinformation campaign?

Because I'd argue against both of those.

Something else?

7:18 PM · Jul 5, 2025

I think you are avoiding the reality that at a minimum, our government(s) is/are almost certainly faking a UFO/NHI presence from time to time. That we have UFO/NHI SAPs that we deny. That UFO/NHI is used as cover for aerospace at a minimum. That we do harm to our own people by pretending that everything has a prosaic explanation.

And that you are not debunking the govt bunk (at a minimum).

My issue is treating our own people like garbage. I despise gaslighting our own people. And the energy you bring is that we don’t need to go to that layer.

Again: I’m the only guy in UFO space who has seen nothing conclusive about NHI. I’m with you on that.

But I do think there was a secret serious physics research program that was affiliated with this UFO anti-gravity stuff. I think Roger Babson and Agnew Bahnson were likely CIA or IC cutouts. I think this is all bound up in the “Golden Age of General Relativity”.

And I wish you would stop pretending it’s all innocent mistakes, coincidences, people making silly claims. A lot of it is. Sure.

But after you strip that off, a lot of what’s left is toxic NatSec gaslighting. And if you can’t face that I’d prefer you stop. Because you then hurt the people who got gaslit.

8:21 PM · Jul 5, 2025

I am not avoiding that. We should absolutely look into topics like Yankee Blue, and Grusch's claims.

I don't treat people like garbage. When I engage with people I do so with facts, logic, and respect. I wrote a book on doing just that.

You're waving around a straw man.

8:58 PM · Jul 5, 2025

Let’s find out if true.

Do you believe that the U.S. may have created “Craft?” Like deliberate mock ups in hangars.

I do. I think it is likely that some of our people had *real* run-ins with fake craft.

Do you believe that there are *real* stories from our top people and ordinary joes about fake aerial events? Like where we know what people saw, and yet we tell them it was nothing. Like a seagull. Or a contrail. Or Venus. Or a Mylar balloon.

I do. And that is where I part company with you often. Not because you are mean. But because I don’t want this done to our own people, and I have never seen you aggressively go after this. If I am wrong, you have my apology in advance. Happy to make it.

Do you believe that the U.S. maintained a secret zero insignia airforce that operated by descending on citizens collecting information, and destroying and confiscating equipment / data and that it physically intimidated US citizens in large empty western states near testing areas without identifying itself?

I do. And it is so unbelievable that I didn’t think this was possible until friends reported it happened to them. I believe that this had to do with the CIA office of “Global Access”.

Do you believe that @pmarca and @bhorowitz were told that entire areas of theoretical physics were taken off line by the Biden Whitehouse, while researchers have been in 52 year denied stagnation in Standard Model Physics? Which makes no sense. Why aren’t we trying new things???

I do. And there has been bizarre lack of interest for any major news desk to get to the bottom of this claim.

Do you believe that there was a giant secret anti-gravity program, attached to UAP, with many of the world’sbtop physicists within it? And that it was funded by two likely IC cutouts Babson and Bahnson?

I do. It was called the “Golden Age of General Relativity.”

Do you believe that UFOs were cover for aerospace…and that aerospace was cover for physics? And that top physics people were in and out of Aerospace where they had *no* particular reason to be other than secret research?

I do. Like RIAS in Baltimore. And Feynman’s adventures in Buffalo. And L Witten at Wright-Patt. Etc etc.

I’m fed up with being lied to Mick by NatSec incompetents. I have my PhD in this area which is strangely unusable. No one is doing real fundamental research anywhere in physics Mick. Or haven’t you noticed that this changed in 40+ years. It’s like a medieval philosophy cult now.

This is all touching physics. Not Bokeh. Not Mylar. This is largely about the magic and power of a science that gave us god like power and then mysteriously stalled, and now cannot be restarted no matter how cheap and easy it would be to do it.

This (above) is a lot about post Manhattan Project public physics bullshit. Not seagulls.

Some of it is material science. Some of it is nukes. But gravity is in this game. And who knows what else. And quantum gravity is the nonsense we can’t question. The likely cover story if you will.

I don’t care about 👽. I care about NatSec gaslighting of our own PhD level mathematicians and physicists. The children of Teller (Particle Theory), Ulam (Geometry), and Einstein (Gravity). All of whom were central to the Bomb.

Wanna debunk the cover stories? If so I’ll join ya.

9:58 PM · Jul 5, 2025

"Do you believe that the U.S. may have created “Craft?” Like deliberate mock ups in hangars. "

I don't think it's impossible. I'm not sure WHY they would do it. Maybe to confuse the Russians into thinking we have advanced tech.

"I do. I think it is likely that some of our people had *real* run ins with fake craft."

Entirely possible, at least in hangers.

"Do you believe that there are *real* stories from our top people and ordinary about fake aerial events? Like where we know what people saw and we tell them it was nothing. Like a seagull. Or a contrail. Or Venus. Or a Mylar balloon."

Probably, to a degree, to cover up secret test flights of new tech. We know this happened with the U2. The degree of how much was invented and how much is just allowing organic stories to grow is unclear.

"I do. And that is where I part company with you often. Not because you are mean. But because I don’t want this done to our own people, and I have never seen you aggressively go after this. If I am wrong, you have my apology in advance. Happy to make it."

Aggressively go after what? The military saying things that are not true in order to keep secret stuff secret? Some people getting hurt? Sure, ideally that wouldn't happen. But also ideally, we'd have universal health care, the lack of which ruins many more lives than hyper-rare UFO-themed cover-ups. Yes, I'd prefer less lying and fucking with people, but forgive me if I don't get too excited about such a minor (albeit very interesting) issue.

"Do you believe that the U.S. maintained a secret zero insignia airforce that operated by descending on citizens collecting information and destroying and confiscating equipment and data and physically intimidated US citizens in large empty western states without identifying itself?"

I have no idea. Probably in the past, back when the cold war and nuke secrets were a big deal. There's the singular Bennewitz case 40 years ago (driven insane, or already part-way there?). But now? I really don't see it.

"I do. And it is so unbelievable that I didn’t think this was possible until friends reported it happened to them. I believe that this had to do with the CIA office of “Global Access”."

What happened to them? Vague stories are not helpful.

"Do you believe that @pmarca and @bhorowitz were told that entire areas of theoretical physics were taken off line by the Biden Whitehouse, while we have been in 52 year denied stagnation in Standard Model Physics? "

No. I'd like to see some evidence of this.

"I do. And there has been bizarre lack of interest for any major news desk to get to the bottom of this claim. "

It's because it's a cool but implausible-sounding story with no evidence.

"Do you believe that there was a giant secret anti-gravity program, attached to UAP, with many of the worlds top physicists within it? And that it was funded by two IC cutouts Babson and Bahnson? I do. It was called the “Golden Age of General Relativity.”"?

Sure, but the question is if they actually found anything. I'm not seeing any evidence of this. The stagnation of Standard Model Physics might simply be because the reality of physics is rather boring and incapable of actually giving us anti-gravity flying cars and starships. I've seen all the public UFO evidence, and indirectly heard about the secret stuff, and there's no strong case for gravity drives.

"Do you believe that UFOs were cover for aerospace…and that aerospace was cover for physics?"

The former, but again perhaps more "let it happen" than "make it happen"

"And that top physics people were in and out of Aerospace where they had no particular reason to be other than secret research. I do. Like RIAS in Baltimore. And Feynman’s adventures in Buffalo. And L Witten at Wright Patt. Etc etc."

Basic research is essentially speculative, especially in a practical setting. Stick a Feynman in the research department, and good things might happen. Worth a shot. It does not mean they are pushing the bounds of physics.

"I’m fed up with being lied to Mick. I have a PhD in this area which is strangely unusable. No one is doing real fundamental research anywhere in physics Mick. Or haven’t you noticed that this changed in 40+ years. It’s like a medieval philosophy cult now."

So you keep saying. But there have been lots of advances. It's sad they haven't solved gravity or anything revolutionary. But I don't think revolutions in science can simply be guaranteed with bigger and more focused funding. You ascribe this lack of progress to a conspiracy, but maybe it's just because they haven't found anything.

"This is all touching physics. Not Bokeh. Not Mylar. This is largely about the magic and power of a science that mysteriously stalled and cannot be restarted no matter how cheap and easy it would be to do it. "

Well, get Peter to do it then. If it's so easy, why doesn't he just put you in charge, solve gravity, and get to trillionaire?

"This (above) is a lot about post Manhattan Project public physics bullshit. Not seagulls. Some of it is material science. Some of it is nukes. But gravity is in this game. And who knows what else. And quantum gravity is the nonsense we can’t question. The likely cover story if you will."

There are plenty of people questioning quantum gravity. It's a model that seems to work, but has no real empirical evidence. It does not stop people trying other models.

"I don’t care about . I care about gaslighting PhD level mathematicians and physicists. The children of Teller (Particle Theory), Ulam (Geometry), and Einstein (Gravity). All of whom were central to the Bomb. Wanna debunk the cover stories? If so I’ll join ya."

You're going to have to give me some actual evidence that this is a deliberate cover story. Because I'm unconvinced.

10:30 PM · Jul 5, 2025

I appreciate the thoughtful answer.

I think it come down to this. You write:

“Aggressively go after what? The military saying things that are not true in order to keep secret stuff secret? Some people getting hurt? Sure, ideally that wouldn't happen. But also ideally, we'd have universal health care, the lack of which ruins many more lives than hyper-rare UFO-themed cover-ups. Yes, I'd prefer less lying and fucking with people, but forgive me if I don't get too excited about such a minor (albeit very interesting) issue.”

If I thought that this was a minor issue I might agree with you.

I think we may have just killed millions with an escaped science experiment called “COVID”. I think the government gaslighting its own scientists and intimidating those who refuse the gaslighting is an absolutely major issue. It’s immoral. It’s illegal. And it’s potentially world altering.

Our government is likely by far the most major actor in the science bunko story. And I want bunk out of science. Starting with Nature, Princeton, the Lancet, Harvard, NSF, and Communications in Mathematical Physics.

So that is where we differ. What you are looking at with junky video analysis is helpful. But in my opinion it is the “minor (albeit very interesting) issue”. The major issue is government control of and subordination of science to NatSec disinformation and misinformation. Like COVID.

So we found the source of our issue. I take @pmarca very seriously on this. I want top scientists in the room who can restrain those NatSec people who can’t keep a virus confined to a secure laboratory meant to circumvent our participation in the bioweapns agreements. I want physicists in the room who say “Wait: why are we doing the same thing for decades that clearly doesn’t work while not pursuing other paths?” I want economists saying “But that would be faking a lower inflation number to raise taxes and slash benefits in a way that the public couldn’t grasp.”

And you are more worried about ghost stories spreading unimpeded because people see ordinary things that are just kinda misinterpreted. That’s noble. But I don’t intuit why that is the major issue.

à chacun son goût…

Thx.

https://t.co/H683aAOGFv

11:56 PM · Jul 5, 2025