Anti-gravity and the search for Dr. Ning-Li

Originally posted by TruthMagnet

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by TruthMagnet

 

If you have any links to the referenced gravwave communications, please share.

Also, if you are interested in cloaking, I have quite a bit of info here:

On The Horizon: Cloaking Research From The World Of Nanotech

That is another field that started to take off not too long ago, but then just sort of died.

Oh, but some of the stories i have heard from folks behind the scenes. I can promise you that there is something to invisibility type cloaking.

BFFT,

Haven't come back across to the link to that Gravity Wave Communication presentation as of yet - but like all things of this nature that can dissapear from the internet I know I printed out a hard copy of it which I have somewhere.

I'l drop you a PM if I find that and maybe I could fax it to you - or fax it to me and email you a pdf.

Anyways - sorry I didn't respond earlier - I must have missed your request post - the presentation really seemed bizarre to me - didn't seem to discuss things in terms of theory but of actual use imho...

Stranger still since civilian Academia is still spending millions to create detectors sensitive enough to detect gravity waves - and I think they've had few "real" confirmed candidate signals yet...

bigfatfurrytexan,

I finally found the document - and it is still online!

www.americanantigravity.com...

www.americanantigravity.com...

Love to hear your take on this - it seems legit to me - and oddly not just theoretical in tone.

reply to post by truthmagnet


Here is my take....

on the first .pdf, it is dated for May 6-9, 2003. I am unsure if it is made in advance or after the fact as a summary. However, it would seem that if she took over the stated position of Principle Investigator of the Project of
Gravito-Electromagnetic superconductivity experiment of the US Army in 2001, we have found absolute proof that the story concocted by Dr. Baker is a lie.

He said she never showed for the US Army. That she took the 500k and ran. But that was in 2001. She left NASA in 2000 to strike on her own with her business venture, which was scooped up by the ARL in 2001.

Yet in 2003 she was a cochairwoman for this major event in a secretive niche industry with major implication. COCHAIRWOMAN. 2 full years after Baker claims she went missing.

Then there is the reference to this paper (in abstract form), also from 2003.

Like I had mentioned, it seemed VERY fishy that Dr. Baker sent me two emails, each saying something different. One seemed to be a form letter, the other more personable, as if penned by a different hand. Likely an assistant or something meant to filter information.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hi there BFFT, how's it hanging? Long time no talk. Thanks for interesting posts. What's your favorite beer, if any?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Doing well. There are a ton of leads in that link provided by the previous poster. I have about 15 tabs open right now.

I don't really drink. I may drink once every couple of years. if i am having beer, i prefer Modelo Negro. Fat Tire is a pretty good brew, too. Most American beers are like water. No thanks...i have bad tasting, discolored water in my faucet.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I don't really drink.

Why? Ben Franklin was quoted as saying that you can't trust a man who don't drink.

if i am having beer, i prefer Modelo Negro.

That's a pretty good choice, I must say.

Most American beers are like water.

Do yourself a favor and visit Belgium. You'll have an epiphany. It's a form of art and every sip is a poem written by the brewmaster. In Flemish, I suppose.

BFFT, luck would have it I'm a former weightlifter, too.

reply to post by truthmagnet


TM, I find it shocking that in the second .pdf if you read Roger Clive Woods abstract it states that E. Podkletnov's spinning experiment was repeated, peer reviewed and the effects confirmed. Who, What, Where, When, Why and How? this event was in 2003 and we have yet to see any major confirmation of these experiments. Or am I missing something over the last 8 years?

M

Originally posted by masawa
reply to post by truthmagnet

 

TM, I find it shocking that in the second .pdf if you read Roger Clive Woods abstract it states that E. Podkletnov's spinning experiment was repeated, peer reviewed and the effects confirmed. Who, What, Where, When, Why and How? this event was in 2003 and we have yet to see any major confirmation of these experiments. Or am I missing something over the last 8 years?

M

That is the basis of this whole thing.

2003 was when Ning Li seems to have disappeared, as well. She was the one who was pursuing the Podkletnov designs.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Belgian beers are excellent, first tasted them when I was in Malta in 2008.
Bact to topic and am curious if Ning li did surface recently.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Belgian beers are excellent, first tasted them when I was in Malta in 2008.
Bact to topic and am curious if Ning li did surface recently.

I have heard nothing. but i did write a piece on my blog about her. Over the last two weeks there have been several Google Search results that have led into my blog using terms like "Dr Ning Li" and "AC Gravity LLC". Not sure who it is that is showing interest, but there are some people who are apparently.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I have heard nothing. but i did write a piece on my blog about her. Over the last two weeks there have been several Google Search results that have led into my blog using terms like "Dr Ning Li" and "AC Gravity LLC". Not sure who it is that is showing interest, but there are some people who are apparently.

Thats interesting. Ihave concluded my own research for now, into Antigravity 2 weeks ago,
Iwill be curious to know if Ning li had any product to sell b4 she opened her own company,
i doubt it very much, maybe she was told to open up her own company for some reason and maybe for the same reason she has disappeared

Originally posted by masawa
reply to post by truthmagnet

 

TM, I find it shocking that in the second .pdf if you read Roger Clive Woods abstract it states that E. Podkletnov's spinning experiment was repeated, peer reviewed and the effects confirmed. Who, What, Where, When, Why and How? this event was in 2003 and we have yet to see any major confirmation of these experiments. Or am I missing something over the last 8 years?

M

Yeah - exactly - thats why I scrambled to print this out years ago when I saw it on the web - and just finally found it online again when I was moving my office and came across the original print outs.

I was like - crap - if legit - this is some kind of smoking gun that they are full b.s. when they claim these experiments came to nothing of interest.

And frankly - I just want my dang hoverboard - is that too much to frikkin' ask!??

(and if they are keeping this breakthrough from civilians they can KMA - I want it NOW!!!!)

I remember Ning talking openly to popular science type mags about this tech - now it has dropped of the face of the Earth - thus making me suspicious that it does indeed have merit.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Hey BFFT,

I have a question for you regarding the weaponization of this technology.

What do you think would happen if a non-nuclear explosion was created whilst situated so that it is under the influence of the device li is working on? Would the blast be stronger or weaker?

What do you think?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Hey BFFT,

I have a question for you regarding the weaponization of this technology.

What do you think would happen if a non-nuclear explosion was created whilst situated so that it is under the influence of the device li is working on? Would the blast be stronger or weaker?

What do you think?

I woke up this morning at 7:22am. By 7:24am i had rolled over and pulled my laptop back over to the bed. By 7:25pm you had officially asked a question that I had no business trying to comprehend at that time of day.


After taking some time to get my brain back into functionality, i think the hardest part would be using the Li tech in a delivery system.

The superconductor only works when it is extremely cold. This makes it difficult to deliver, at least on Earth. In space, however, it would be far easier to get those supercooled temperatures.

Regardless, it would seem that the effect, as shown by Li/Podkletnov would potentiate the power of the explosion. Were it true anti grav (i.e. a force that extends beyond the miniscule in distance) it could be a potential "game changer", were you to want to make a bigger blast.

Then again, would it not be very easy to have a spaceborn object that could be aimed at the area where the explosion is set to happen?

Beyond that, imagine how destructive a force you could create with a "flattening" motion localized over an area. An anti grav type of device could be weaponized to literally flatten entire areas. Weight is a measurement of force. The force of gravity. If you could increase the gravitational force for a short term over a highly localized area, the entire area could be decimated in a split second. No need for an explosion. Just destroy everything with the atmosphere above it.

wrong post

Beyond that, imagine how destructive a force you could create with a "flattening" motion localized over an area. An anti grav type of device could be weaponized to literally flatten entire areas. Weight is a measurement of force. The force of gravity. If you could increase the gravitational force for a short term over a highly localized area, the entire area could be decimated in a split second. No need for an explosion. Just destroy everything with the atmosphere above it.

Lol. Thats a scary scenario.

To be honest I'm surprised we managed to develop methods to manipulate sub atomic particles before figuring out how to get a electromagnetic field to effect gravity on an object..

Originally posted by truthinfact
To be honest I'm surprised we managed to develop methods to manipulate sub atomic particles before figuring out how to get a electromagnetic field to effect gravity on an object..

Em field and gravity are entitrely different entities not linked to each other, in any way, shape or form.
Besides gravity is the least understood force, till to date.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The superconductor only works when it is extremely cold. This makes it difficult to deliver, at least on Earth. In space, however, it would be far easier to get those supercooled temperatures

Just for sake of completeness: there is the so-called high-temperature conductivity. It can be achieved at liquid nitrogen temperatures, and that technology is utterly inexpensive. I spent many years working next to a tank full of that liquid. It's a byproduct of LOX generation, so quite plentiful. I got burns (frostbites, to be exact) when trying to scoop a handful with my palms -- I knew it was risky. Sometimes it works because the liquid gets suspended on a layer of gaseous nitrogen forming because it boils so vigorously.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


Well....we may not have found the actual connection between gravity and EM. But it is widely thought that there is some connection, even if only ancillary.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by truthinfact
To be honest I'm surprised we managed to develop methods to manipulate sub atomic particles before figuring out how to get a electromagnetic field to effect gravity on an object..

Em field and gravity are entitrely different entities not linked to each other, in any way, shape or form.
Besides gravity is the least understood force, till to date.

Right on!

Have to hand it to AR.