The Golden Age of General Relativity
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.On X
2022
Instantly stop all progress in the worldâs most successful scientific community using only two words inducing permanent paralytic failure that cannot be questioned.
Iâll go first: âQuantum Gravityâ
you're confusing the symptom with the disease
Hi Sabine!
I donât follow your statement here. How am I confused?
I just meant the cause of the problem is that theoretical physicists don't understand the responsibility they carry when experimental tests take longer and longer. That they got stuck on (a particular idea of) quantum gravity is the effect, but not the cause.
Hmm. As you know Iâm historically a big supporter of your courage & insight as critic. Perhaps you know something here that I do not as a nonphysicist. Open to that.
But I disagree. The Q-Gravity Mass Delusion is quite different in character. It is highly specific in its effect.
It is tied to all sorts of weirdness involving top physics and math people, bizarre funders, forgotten research institutes, aerospace companies, post Manhattan Project government secrecy, the golden age of General Relativity andâŠwords fail meâŠoutright quackery.
GUTs are a good test case. I believe you are in error going after Beauty when it comes to Grand Unified Theory. Your critique to Neil Degrasse Tyson recently applied to Georgi and Glashow Basic SU(5)âŠbut not to Pati-Salaam SU(4) x SU(2) x SU(2) for example.
I caution that you not fall into the trap of using Beauty as critique.
The abuse of Beauty in String Theory and Quantum Gravity more generally is valid as a target.
Critiquing the use of beauty, by contrast is a suicide mission. And I donât want to see you on it. As a friend.
Beauty *is* a light in the darkness as experiment becomes less accessible. Perhaps our best one.
But not all lights in the darkness are natural daylight leading to the exits from Platoâs cave.
2023
Now I feel completely alone.
I want our wanting out of this story. I have a huge dog in this fight. I spend every day fighting my own human desire for GU to be proven correct.
I believe this is how String Theorists stopped being scientists.
I just want our data & the physics.
I want this to be real. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/06/whistleblower-ufo-alien-tech-spacecraft
Â
If biological aliens were here from others star systems in crafts that defy the current physics of the standard model and, more importantly, general relativity, I would be one of the few people who would have a guess on day one as to how they must have gotten here. Itâs tempting.
I donât think biological interstellar alien visitors using GR and the SM make much sense. So I try to have a war *inside* my own mind as to what is true. I have a genuine âNeed to Knowâ as to whether this is BS NatSec space opera disinformation theater. Because to me, it is data.
What just happened isnât data. Itâs that a sober individual just pushed one of the many longstanding highly conserved NHI narratives collected from *many* diverse sober NatSec informants over the sworn testimony line. And it gets a LOT crazier from here. But itâs not science yet.
As Iâve been saying, there is so much deliberate NatSec BS out here that our own scientists are being propagandized. Weâre drilling holes in our own scientistsâ lifeboat. Last time we saw this it was virologists/immunologists/epidemiologists being gaslit. Now itâs physicists.
Let me be very careful in what I am about to say. We have at least the appearance and optics of scientific self-sabotage. And wanting things to be true is how science dies.
I fight like hell to promote my theory. But Iâd sign on to another to know the truth if I was wrong.
We may be looking at the birth of a new UFO religion. Or a moment of contact. Or a long running Disinformation campaign. Etc.
To go beyond GR, letâs be scientists & get NatSec out of our data first. Where is our data pruned of space opera disinformation and cultic religiosity?
What I want to know:
Why was the Mansfield Amendment passed?
Why did NSF fake a labor shortage in our MARKET economy destroying American STEM labor markets?
What stopped the Golden Age Of General Relativity?
Why was the SSC really cancelled?
StringTheory & STAGNATION: WTF?
What the hell was the 1957 Behnson funded UNC Chapel Hill conference actually about?
Why are we not stopping to QUESTION quantum gravity after 70 years of public *FAILURE* inspired by Babson-Behnson patronage of RIAS, the Institute of Field Physics and the precursor to Lockheed?
This is the 50th year of stagnation in the Standard Model Lagrangian. It is AS IF we are deliberately trying to forget how to do actual physics. Everyone who has succeeded in Particle Theory in standard terms is now over 70. This is insane. In 25 years there will be no one left.
Why are we not admitting that quantum gravity is killing physics and is the public respectable face of 1950s anti-gravity mania that lives on to murder all new theories in their cradle?
Quantum Gravity is fake and works to stop actual physics.
There. I said it. Now letâs talk.
If you want to know whether there are biological interstellar visitors here observing us, the short answer is âAlmost *certainly* not if they are using our current stagnant non-progressing theories of physics.â
Letâs finally get serious about this whacky subject? Thanks. đ
I swear I didn't write my tweet to make you feel alone and I'm genuinely sorry if that was the result. That said, I think it's better to acknowledge one's hopes and desires than to pretend they don't exist and thereby overestimate one's own rationality.
@skdh I acknowledge my desires as you see from what I wrote. But a stagnant community always wants outcomes. It wants SUSY. Or Strings. Or some g-2 muon anomaly. Etc.
I want too. But what I want is mostly just a desire to get the BS out of physics so we can get back to succeeding.
Why are we always guessing? I donât get this. As Iâve been saying, there are some crazy stories here and no one has the overarching history.
Know when you donât know, and donât have a good guess. That is what we do in science. We say âI donât even have a guess at this point.â
I still donât have a good guess. It feels like at least five things stuck together:
A proto-religion forming.
A USG aerospace disinformation narrative.
A story about foreign spying on US installations.
A physics narrative from the 1950s & Golden Age of GR.
Actual wildness.
But how much really weird stuff is there after you get rid of the first four which are definitely all real? I canât tell you. Too much BS around the first 4. Just push for disclosure. Stop asking everyone what they think is true about every last development.
- Something* is up.
2024
Many of you are asking for my reaction regarding the just released @DoD_AARO report. There is much to say. I want to think carefully before saying more. I am not unsympathetic to US National Security needs in this.
In February of 2023, @joerogan invited me for four hours onto the world's largest English Language program (episode #1945) to describe in detail the mystery of potential US Government involvement in UFOs and Post-Einsteinian physics during the mysterious "Golden Age of General Relativity". It has been seen and discussed by millions as expected. I was thus eager to see how thorough this report would be by combing it for search strings raised in my research.
REFERENCES:
"Glenn L Martin Company": 0
Bryce Cecile DeWitt: 0
Institute for Field Physics: 0
Research Institute for Advanced Study: 0
Louis Witten: 0
Roger Babson: 0
Agnew Bahson: 0
Gravity Research Foundation: 0
Gravity: 1 (pg. 32)
Rennaisance Technologies: 0
UNC Chapel Hill: 0
Solomon Lefschetz: 0
Freeman Dyson: 0
Herman Bondi: 0
Negative Mass: 0
"Scientific and Intelligence Aspects of the UFO Problem"
Australian Intelligence 1971 Report: 0
Australia: 0
George Rideout: 0
Edward Teller: 0
Robert Oppenheimer: 0
David Kaiser: 0
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: 1 (pg. 18)
Curtis Wright Aerospace Buffalo: 0
Pascal Jordan: 0
Mansfield Ammendment: 0
Joshua Goldberg: 0
Office of Global Access: 0
University of Texas, Austin: 0
Center for Dynamical Systems: 0
Physics: 5 (pgs. 16-17, 53)
Relativity: 0
Albert Einstein: 0
George Bunker: 0
Welcome Bender: 0
George Trimble: 0
CONCLUSION: This report purports to have studied the questions raised surrounding UFO/UAP related research of the US federal Government. It, in fact, appears to have studied a carefully chosen SUBSET of the claims selected from among those which appear to have mass appeal to the so-called "UFO Community." It completely, or nearly completely, avoided reporting on all questions surrounding issues which have been raised in serious research and by PhD level researchers who have raised scientific questions in this area. This continues the pattern of using PhD level government scientists who appear to avoid the actual research questions most likely to involve sensitve Special Access Programs and Stovepiped Research which are compartmentalized by design. Whether the omissions are due to issues of avoidance, misdirection (e.g. so-called Limited Hangout strategy), ignorance or incompetance cannot be discerned from the information given.
RECOMMENDATION: It is simply not possible to treat the current AARO report as historically complete or comprehensive. To gain the public trust, the successor to AARO would have to expand and redo this analysis with input from domain professionals who are trusted by the public not to have an apparent agenda or government background (e.g. Prof. David Kaiser of MIT or Dr. Nima Arkani Hamed of IAS, Prof. Brian Keating of UCSD, Avi Loeb of Harvard) Otherwise, it is relatively easy for scientists to "Follow the Silence" in government reports to see what is *not* being addressed or discussed.
Â
Today the DoD released our Historical Record Report Volume 1.
AAROâs report covers more than 70 years of the U.S. record relating to UAP, draws from interviews, archival research, and partnerships across government and industry.
Read it here: https://statics.dod.teams.microsoft.us/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html
The denied programs are real.
Shellenberger is proving that.
I went as far as I could, but hit an absolute wall and couldnât get names like âimmaculate constellationâ to search on. Congratulations to my buddy Michael @shellenberger for breaking through.
It will be great if he can finally connect the mysterious so-called âGolden Age of General Relativityâ of physics in the â50s-â60s to these programs. Or if he can put that to rest. Either way we need to know.
There may be no aliens or craft. I have seen no high quality evidence yet myself.
But then we will have an enormous question as to what these denied programs really were doing in the first place. Either way, itâs going to be incredibly interesting. đ
2025
This may be the most delightfully ignorant post I have seen in some time.
The discovery of Quarks: 1968
The founding of Molecular Biology: 1953
Teller-Ulam H-Bomb Design: 1952
Golden Age of General Relativity: 1953-75
World Wide Web: 1989
Axial Tomography for CT scans: 1960
Yang Mills theory: 1954
Dark Energy Discovery: 1998
Ahronov Bohm Holonomy: 1959
CKM and PNMS Generation Structure: â73
Higgs Mechanism Discovey: 1960s
Higgs Discovery: 2012
W and Z particles Discovered: 1983
Cosmic Microwave Radiation: 1964
DESI: Right Now.
EtcâŠ
I will even take my enemiesâŠthe frauds, scoundrels, cosplayers, saboteurs and failed among the physicistsâŠover the heroes of any other field.
Your entire world, including its economy, is the product of physics. Itâs that dramatic.
Do the research. You will find the same.
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*.
BOMBSHELL: Pentagon created fake UFO evidence, promoted false alien stories https://nypost.com/video/bombshell-pentagon-created-fake-ufo-evidence-promoted-false-alien-stories/
Â
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.
Â
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.
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:
Â
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:
Â
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.
Â
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...
đ
Â
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.
For the first time since JFKâs 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
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 âAmericans suck at STEMâ.
We have a âSettled Scienceâ narrative.
We have a âPeer Reviewâ narrative.
We had a âGreat Moderationâ narrative.
We have âIndependent Journalismâ.
We have a âDisgraced Financierâ story.
We have an âAerospace and UFOâ opera.
Itâs all one thing that cannot be named:
National Interest âManaged Reality.â
We need to talk about what debunking was before it became âCovert influence operationsâ, âImage Cheapneingââand personal destruction warfare.
So letâs talk.
Are you buying into Anna Paulina Luna's narrative regarding Joannides?
Or Morley's? Posners? Ratcliffe's?
Which one do you pick, and why?
This is part of the problem with debunking.
You see, I donât know what Covid is. Is it a science project? A miraculous spontaneous mutation? A bioweapon leak?
I donât know.
But what I do know was that there was TREMENDOUS pressure to say something false about the Wuhan Labs.
Likewise here: I donât 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 donât believe at all is that there is no use of UFO SAPs by the USG. I think we create SAPs and we ruin peopleâs lives around them when good folks canât let go of the fact that they saw or experienced or interacted with something we know a lot about.
Thatâs my issue. Discrediting behavior targeted on individuals to protect programs with claims of national interest.
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?
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 donât need to go to that layer.
Again: Iâm the only guy in UFO space who has seen nothing conclusive about NHI. Iâm 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 âGolden Age of General Relativityâ.
And I wish you would stop pretending itâs all innocent mistakes, coincidences, people making silly claims. A lot of it is. Sure.
But after you strip that off, a lot of whatâs left is toxic NatSec gaslighting. And if you canât face that Iâd prefer you stop. Because you then hurt the people who got gaslit.
Â
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.
Letâs find out if true.
Do you believe that the U.S. may have created âCraft?â 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 donât 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 didnât think this was possible until friends reported it happened to them. I believe that this had to do with the CIA office of âGlobal Accessâ.
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 arenât 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 worldâsbtop physicists within it? And that it was funded by two likely IC cutouts Babson and Bahnson?
I do. It was called the âGolden Age of General Relativity.â
Do you believe that UFOs were cover for aerospaceâŠand 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 Feynmanâs adventures in Buffalo. And L Witten at Wright-Patt. Etc etc.
Iâm 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 havenât you noticed that this changed in 40+ years. Itâs 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 canât question. The likely cover story if you will.
I donât care about đœ. 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 Iâll join ya.
"Do you believe that the U.S. may have created âCraft?â 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 donât 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 didnât think this was possible until friends reported it happened to them. I believe that this had to do with the CIA office of âGlobal Accessâ."
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 âGolden Age of General Relativity.â"?
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 aerospaceâŠand 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 Feynmanâs 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.
"Iâm 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 havenât you noticed that this changed in 40+ years. Itâs 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 canât 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 donât 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 Iâll join ya."
You're going to have to give me some actual evidence that this is a deliberate cover story. Because I'm unconvinced.
I appreciate the thoughtful answer.
I think it come down to this. You write:
âAggressively 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.â
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 âCOVIDâ. I think the government gaslighting its own scientists and intimidating those who refuse the gaslighting is an absolutely major issue. Itâs immoral. Itâs illegal. And itâs 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 âminor (albeit very interesting) issueâ. 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 canât 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 âWait: why are we doing the same thing for decades that clearly doesnât work while not pursuing other paths?â I want economists saying âBut that would be faking a lower inflation number to raise taxes and slash benefits in a way that the public couldnât grasp.â
And you are more worried about ghost stories spreading unimpeded because people see ordinary things that are just kinda misinterpreted. Thatâs noble. But I donât intuit why that is the major issue.
Ă chacun son goĂ»tâŠ
Thx.
One of my greatest frustrations is the inability for nuance and ânot knowingâ to survive internet discussion.
My assertion that âwe may be faking a UFO situationâ on Rogan is independent of alien visitation. Yes, it appears that we faked UFOs! I wasnât wrong.
And yes, there still could be Aliens. ButâŠNo, I have not seen any credible evidence of this to date.
So many of you know what is going on. Congratulations. I, myself, do not.
But I do think I called it correctly on several fronts:
A) We do fake UFOs!!
B) We use UFOs as a multi-purpose cover.
C) We mentally destroy and intimidate our own folks over UFOs. Why? I donât know.
D) There is some weird tie between actual high level physics and anti-gravity / UFOs that lasted for about 15-20 years that showed up as âThe Golden Age of General Relativityâ centered around Louis Witten/Roger Babson and Bryce DeWitt/Agnew Bahnson. Babson and Bahnson appear to be âcutoutsâ who funded this.
E) US aerospace companies are not just about conventional aerospace. They also appear to be secure shells in which some theoretical research was done. At least historically. The Glenn L Martin company (Later Martin-Marietta, then Lockheed-Martin) may be foremost among them.
F) If we were smart enough to have a permanent secret post Einsteinian physics project, it would be hidden in plain sight in the age of satellites, rather than off in New Mexico again. It would be under a cover story for a secretive secure facility running through billions employing particle theorists, differential geometers/relativists and machine learning people. It would be easy to find because of that signature, but impossible to prove. It would be co-located with other institutions on which it depended.
G) We are likely not smart enough to have such a program. 10%-20% chance we are. Most likely not. Breaks my heart. But we arenât as smart as we were in the â40s.
ââ-
In my world of people who actually study gravity professionally, all of the above claims have been shocking to these PhD colleagues. Even when presented with direct evidence they donât want to think about it.
So many of you seem to know so much that I donât. You are perpetually certain.
Yet you canât prove anything.
My proposal: you do you.
I have seen no hard evidence for anything shocking beyond that list above. Which is still plenty shocking to gravity researchers.
Thanks.
Only thing i disagree with here is the UFO issue is fake. Itâs absolutely not. Look up the Bugo Sphere research ongoing in Mexico if you want to see a real UFO object. Or the UFO footage above the LA fires in Feb.