It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lokheed Martin knows the secret of anti-gravity

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Video links:

youtube.com...

youtube.com...

well, nicely constructed videos, but they don't prove anything. By mixing a little bit of this and a little bit of that, it's like it is believable, but a trained eye could spot the problems easily.

First of all, the anticlockwise-only rotating device behaves like that due to its shape.

Secondly, the test with the two tubes, one of copper and one of iron, proves nothing, as well, because we do not know how the tubes are formed.

Thirdly, why we were not shown the experiment at the Lockheed Martin premises, but we only got to see some paper with signatures? if it's so easy to do it, then why not do it again instead of showing a piece of paper?

Lastly, I do not trust people who sell stuff. If you want to bring out the truth, post it on the internet, don't sell it for profit. The guy obviously wants to sell DVDs...




posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Wow. What a bunch of hokum.


First, from the second video:

The copper tubing and the iron tubing are obviously of different diameters. The magnet took about three seconds to fall through the copper because it was bouncing off the wall of the tube the whole way down, whereas it simply rolled freely through the larger iron tube.

From the first video:

About the opposing magnets in the falling objects experiment (if indeed it ever actually happened), a difference in weight WILL affect how fast it falls. If you take two balloons -- or two basketballs -- and fill one with air and one with water, the one filled with water will fall much faster. That's because it's momentum, due to it's mass and velocity, will help it overcome air resistence much more easily.

And you're right about the spinning "celt", masterp. It's unique shape is designed to want to climb "uphill" clockwise and "downhill" counter-clockwise.

Magician's tricks, pure and simple. And not very clever one's, at that. imho, of course.




[edit on 18-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
Wow. What a bunch of hokum.


First, from the second video:

The copper tubing and the iron tubing are obviously of different diameters. The magnet took about three seconds to fall through the copper because it was bouncing off the wall of the tube the whole way down, whereas it simply rolled freely through the larger iron tube.
[edit on 18-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]


Wrong.. Ever moved a magnet near alluminum or a piece of copper? Try it... Theres even patents using copper and alluminum as motor brakes for magnets. Not some parlor trick...The motion of a magnet induces a back emf.


Originally posted by Tuning Spork
About the opposing magnets in the falling objects experiment (if indeed it ever actually happened), a difference in weight WILL affect how fast it falls. If you take two balloons -- or two basketballs -- and fill one with air and one with water, the one filled with water will fall much faster. That's because it's momentum, due to it's mass and velocity, will help it overcome air resistence much more easily.

Magician's tricks, pure and simple. And not very clever one's, at that. imho, of course.


[edit on 18-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]


He says they are the same weight, and put them in the same shapes in which a person could not tell them apart.

This video of Boyd Bushman was already posted in another thread btw.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
Ever moved a magnet near alluminum or a piece of copper?


Yes.



Try it... Theres even patents using copper and alluminum as motor brakes for magnets. Not some parlor trick...The motion of a magnet induces a back emf.


If, by "emf", you mean electromagnetic force, then I confess that I've never heard of a "back" emf. Magnets don't react with aluminum, copper, brass, etc, because these metals' molecules don't polarize when they "freeze".

Or has this guy discovered some amazing property of common metals that's eluded all the alchemists of antiquity?


He says they are the same weight, and put them in the same shapes in which a person could not tell them apart.


He says.


XL5

posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Back EMF (eddy currents) is real. The effects can be seen when shorting the wires of a low RPM PM DC motor, when the wires are shorted. The magnets/coils "feel" friction and it will be harder to turn the motor shaft then when the wires are not shorted. Copper is better then aluminium at having currents induced in it as it has a lower resistance and resists a moving magnetic field. The magnet falls through the copper tube slower, not because its attracted to it, but because it feels resistance from the current induced in it.
Some stationary bikes use an aluminium disk and some magnets to offer the physical resistance.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuning Spork
If, by "emf", you mean electromagnetic force, then I confess that I've never heard of a "back" emf. Magnets don't react with aluminum, copper, brass, etc, because these metals' molecules don't polarize when they "freeze".

Or has this guy discovered some amazing property of common metals that's eluded all the alchemists of antiquity?


I think its refered to as the lens law, and it that case using a copper coil. I don't think he discovered it, but he's saying that was the starting point, and that there's something odd happening there which perhaps could be exploited. I think he's also implying gravity has a relation to magnetism, and therfore gravity can be slowed, or affected somehow.


Originally posted by Tuning Spork
He says.


This guy has always seemed credible to me. I heard him interviewed by Tim Ventura of that antigravity research site, and I have to say he sounds quite intelligent. I think the mp3 is posted somewhere on his site, and you should hear the guy. In his videos he's talking that way cause he can't disclose what he really wants to say, cause he would get in trouble, as with any employee talking about secret military programs. He doesn't speculate and sounds very sincere. The Gulf Breeze sightings theory he has is also pretty logical, but unprovable, as with most areas related to ufos and technology.

Lens Law videos from utube.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Forgot all about the maglev train...

I believe the real inventor was Eric Laithwaite, who developed the first maglev, only to have others claim it as theres. Then this guy started saying that gyroscopes go against some laws I don't remember. After that he was cast out, and laughed at by the main stream science community which was sad.

www.gyroscopes.org...


[edit on 20-7-2007 by Freezer]



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Fascinating demonstrations on those YouTube videos, Freezer. I do believe that I stand corrected.


That copper tubing was definately of a greatly lesser diameter than the iron tubing, though!

Edit to add: And I still maintain that that has nothing to do with whether a falling object with the magnets that he described would slow their rate of free-fall.

What gravity is (I've come to conclude) is a mirror image of electromagnetic radiation in transit. But that would have nothing to do with how a simple magnet, alone, behaves re: gravitation.

I've posted my hypothesis on my personal blog. I just may post it here for ATS members to consider. That might be a pretty good choice for my own first ever ATS thread.


Edit again: And that second video, especially, is a much more effective demonstration because it uses a sheet rather than using tubing.

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]

[edit on 20-7-2007 by Tuning Spork]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I do not understand why everybody keeps linking magnetism/electricity with gravity. They are two things entirely different. Gravity is a bending of spacetime, it has nothing to do with attraction/repulsion. That's especially evident in airless experiments where a "heavy" object free-falls in the same rate as a "light" object.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   
nice find I hope we see it in action some time in the future



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Very interesting, and those Ben Rich quotes on the videos are spooky.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
I do not understand why everybody keeps linking magnetism/electricity with gravity. They are two things entirely different. Gravity is a bending of spacetime, it has nothing to do with attraction/repulsion. That's especially evident in airless experiments where a "heavy" object free-falls in the same rate as a "light" object.


Did they drop "heavy" objects made of two opposing $5000 neodyniums?

Why did Einstein spend the last days devoting his life with coming up with a unified theory linking magnetism with gravity? Lets define link, not nessesarily cause and effect type stuff but similarities, and interactions, and maybe when we are good enough cause and effects.



posted on Jul, 27 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer

Originally posted by masterp
I do not understand why everybody keeps linking magnetism/electricity with gravity. They are two things entirely different. Gravity is a bending of spacetime, it has nothing to do with attraction/repulsion. That's especially evident in airless experiments where a "heavy" object free-falls in the same rate as a "light" object.


Why did Einstein spend the last days devoting his life with coming up with a unified theory linking magnetism with gravity?


Not too mention science hasn't come anywhere close to understanding the why, the cause, of gravity; just its pertitnent effects.

MasterP do you know something the rest of the science world doesn't?


Gravity is a bending of spacetime, it has nothing to do with attraction/repulsion.


How does gravity bend spacetime?



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Thirdly, why we were not shown the experiment at the Lockheed Martin premises, but we only got to see some paper with signatures? if it's so easy to do it, then why not do it again instead of showing a piece of paper?


Because Lockheed Martin is a top secret government defense contractor that is not in the habit of showing the public its experiments...



Lastly, I do not trust people who sell stuff. If you want to bring out the truth, post it on the internet, don't sell it for profit. The guy obviously wants to sell DVDs...


David Sereda works hard on research... research takes lots of time and money. You skeptics sit around in here and say "It should be free"

WHY? do the scientists who bring you wonders of the modern world work for free? DO YOU work for free? Why should people like Sereda not be allowed to sell books or CD's to recover expenses like air travel to meet interviewees and website costs etc? Putting stuff on the internet is fine and Serada has done many interviews where he brings you the same info for FREE... the google videos you just posted are FREE Their are many others who share this type of info for FREE. You can actually hear a lot more about this on our Pegasus interview that Undo did at Ancient Futures

www.thestargates.com...

And that is FREE also... And so is all the info at Pegasus
www.thelivingmoon.com...

And one day we too will put out a book, or CD or whatever... do you have any idea what it costs time wise and money to maintain big websites?

:shk:

But a book or CD is permanent, not like the internet..

Tell you what, since all this info is available from websites, and YOU can call Boyd Bushman for an interview yourself, why don't YOU put it out for free?

BTW these videos and topic are actively discussed in two current threads

Classified Antigravity Craft Using Back-Engineered ET Technology?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

UFO: Antigravity or Coandă Effect man made saucers or aircrafts?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 28-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freezer
This guy has always seemed credible to me. I heard him interviewed by Tim Ventura of that antigravity research site, and I have to say he sounds quite intelligent. I think the mp3 is posted somewhere on his site, and you should hear the guy. In his videos he's talking that way cause he can't disclose what he really wants to say, cause he would get in trouble, as with any employee talking about secret military program


Nicely put


This man is a senoir scienetist at Lockheed Martin and has been working on weapons and defense sectret projects all his life. Yet you armchair critics sit here and call him a kook...

Do you really thing Lockheed and the Government would not have checked him out considering how long he has held this top level position? Have any one of you ever visited the LANL, AFRL, DTIC, MIT and other archive and studied the files on aniti gravity(gravity shielding) warp droves and even stargates?

I am willing to bet NO... and there is even an anti gravity flying saucer patent that was issued citing papers form LANL research that was issued by the US Patent office in Nov 2005

And no I won't give the links The info is out there and as said there are two curent threads on this



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Before calling someone a Kook one should have to replicate the experiment and report the results. Make it fully transparent so that we can be sure that proper attentions were paid when needed.

Boyd Bushman is no kook.

I would support Zorgons assertions that the info is out there. It is easy to find. He provided a link that should get you started.



posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Didn't Boyd mention something about an asteroid orbiting between the moon and the earth in 2026 or 2029?

I was just thinking that perhaps this is why the German's are ready to launch a special satellite to seek out those dangers
www.spiegel.de...=rss

Of course it goes back to three scientist at JPL in California giving a live press conference on CNN about a dangerous asteroid orbiting Earth (during the holiday season (1989-1990)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join