Anti-Gravitics, The B-52 bomber and The Corrupt Patent Office an interview with Paul. A .LaViolette

I was surfing around for Anti-Gravity devices and came across several, one of many were the "Lifters" a popular and seemingly easy enough method considering what your'e doing.
Then google began showing links that spoke of lifters regarding the B-52 Bomber..interesting.

I wont be able to describe this as fluently as LaViolette can so if you have a little time, I highly recommend taking the time to hear what he has to say. Even as a laymen I was able to understand some of the basic principals he was describing regarding the bomber and its use of Anti-Gravity (Electro Gravitic) technology.
When I watched this interview I was grateful I had found it, so now I bring it here.

Disclosure Project Part I: Electrogravitics, subquantum kinetics, T. T. Brown, Project Skyvault technology, the Electrogravitics Systems report


Disclosure Project Part II: Electrogravitics Systems report (cont.), classification of the technologies, closed-minded bias in science, suppression of new technologies, more on the B-2 and subquantum kinetics


Diclosure Project Part III: UFO invisibility, American Physical Society lobby opposition, illegal Patent Office activities and need for reform



Other than the Anti-Gravity side of this thread I would really like to discuss or even just hear anyone elses opinion about the issues with the Patent office.
How do you advance in technology when your leaders tell you they already know everything or they say they know what is legitimate science and what is not. How do we break from the norm when they are locking us into it?

On that note, if someone produces a Zero Point Energy device like the one that could fit in a shoe box for instance, why do we allow our governments to lock them away on grounds of treason or terrorism?
They're trying to help the Planet and everybody on it, if someones going to get imprisoned for that I may as well blow my brains out myself!

Sage

LaViolette is, in fact, a quack.

The wing charging system on a B2 is not anti-gravitics. It's something else entirely.

As far as the Patent Office goes, I'm not watching a lot of youtubery. Is he whining about patents that are gagged with a 181? There are a few, not very many, they often don't stay that way long. You probably get more of them with DOE gags than anything else, due to them having nuclear weaponry applications.

reply to post by Bedlam

The wing charging system on a B52 is not anti-gravitics. It's something else entirely.

Ok, well please give me an explanation as detailed as LaViolette's,
Also please give me an explanation as to why the B-52's cost so much when using regular (currently accepted) tech?

Originally posted by SageBeno
Ok, well please give me an explanation as detailed as LaViolette's,

Also please give me an explanation as to why the B-52's cost so much when using regular (currently accepted) tech?

His may be detailed, but it's all fiction. If detail was reality, then we'd live in the world of Robert Jordan.

B-2's cost a lot of money because they're complicated, and they're military. They're made out of very oddball materials. And there's not that many of them made. If you've ever worked in the business, and from your questions you haven't, then you don't understand the costs involved in stuff like this. It's not like punching out iPhones.

At any rate, the explanation is fairly straightforward, although the physics is not. It affects detectability and flight characteristics through straightforward physics that we stole from the Russians in the 60's. I'm not about to post it in the open due to having got in trouble about that in 2004. I'd consider pm'ing it to you if I knew you better, I have done that for a few other posters in the last B2 thread.

If you were astute, you could probably look at the setup and guess for yourself - what DOES a very very highly charged wire in front of the wing do? Ignoring the "lifter" dreck, that is. What is the nature of a highly charged wire? What does that cause?

edit to add: it beats the hell out of promethium or strontium paint

reply to post by Bedlam

At any rate, the explanation is fairly straightforward, although the physics is not. It affects detectability and flight characteristics through straightforward physics that we stole from the Russians in the 60's. I'm not about to post it in the open due to having got in trouble about that in 2004. I'd consider pm'ing it to you if I knew you better, I have done that for a few other posters in the last B2 thread.

Physics is physics stolen or not once proved it would become fact. How in the world could you have gotten into trouble for explaining it to someone?

If you were astute, you could probably look at the setup and guess for yourself - what DOES a very very highly charged wire in front of the wing do? Ignoring the "lifter" dreck, that is. What is the nature of a highly charged wire? What does that cause?

You tell me mate, youre the one with the different theory.

reply to post by SageBeno


I think you mean B-2 not B-52? The B-52 is 50ish years old!!

You might want to take a trip over to the aircraft section on ATS and read up on some real facts.

Originally posted by SageBeno
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Physics is physics stolen or not once proved it would become fact. How in the world could you have gotten into trouble for explaining it to someone?

It was TS. In 2004 no-one had heard of it, and I'm read on to the project. It's downclassed, but I haven't been released from the NDA, although I have seen parts of the system described in Janes and a couple of websites. So it's one of those things that's out NOW, but at the time it was not at all. We had a...sort of private military/contractor forum running in the dead threads of another web site at the time where we were trading ideas about each other's projects, it got caught, heads rolled, this was one of the topics. If you didn't know what we talking about it would have been nearly impossible to follow but still, we shouldn't have done it.

If it was just this one project, wouldn't be an issue (much) but there are a number of derivatives. The B-2 wing system was sort of a third stab at this. The first two were radioactive coatings.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by SageBeno
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Physics is physics stolen or not once proved it would become fact. How in the world could you have gotten into trouble for explaining it to someone?

It was TS. In 2004 no-one had heard of it, and I'm read on to the project. It's downclassed, but I haven't been released from the NDA, although I have seen parts of the system described in Janes and a couple of websites. So it's one of those things that's out NOW, but at the time it was not at all. We had a...sort of private military/contractor forum running in the dead threads of another web site at the time where we were trading ideas about each other's projects, it got caught, heads rolled, this was one of the topics. If you didn't know what we talking about it would have been nearly impossible to follow but still, we shouldn't have done it.

If it was just this one project, wouldn't be an issue (much) but there are a number of derivatives. The B-2 wing system was sort of a third stab at this. The first two were radioactive coatings.

I haven't been able to find any recent references. Can you point me to them?

I guess I would try to charge some of the air as far forward as possible and then apply the same to charge the frontal parts of the wing to make some repulsion. I guess the effect would be like lowering the pressure or density of the air, lowering drag and increasing range. I presume there would be some cost of lift so it would be a high-altitude long-distance improvement only. Even better for commercial and transport! Fly the Boeing 808 PlasmaLiner.

Concerned about the effect on radar x-section, roughly guess it would globally appear to be an oscillator stimulatable by radar on far field. If the frequency is right you could attempt to null, but if it's wrong it could enhance the x-section, and the basic resonant frequency might be a function of the geometry and couldn't be easily changed.

Holy crap, the radioactive stuff goes back to 1964!

patft.uspto.gov.../37131 57&RS=PN/3713157

10. A method for decreasing the electromagnetic and longitudinal wave transmission properties of a gaseous medium adjacent a surface comprising providing a body having a surface capable of generating or reflecting electromagnetic and longitudinal wave energy and coating onto said surface a radioisotope material for producing an ionized plasma adjacent said coating for decreasing the amount of radiated energy passing through said plasma.

11. A method for decreasing the wave transmission properties of a gaseous medium adjacent a surface as set forth in claim 10 wherein said coating is selected from the group consisting of Polonium 210, Promethium 147, Curium 242, or Thorium 204.

And I guess this is the physics in a nutshell:

Another principal object of the present invention resides in the provision of means for injecting momentum energy into a fluid boundary layer medium (gaseous or liquid) surrounding a moving vehicle to cause local alteration of the boundary layer with a consequent reduction in the local and mean skin friction coefficients, thereby increasing the maximum velocity and/or maximum altitude attainable by the vehicle. By the so-called concept of "blowing boundary layer control" it has been demonstrated that the thickness of the natural boundary layer may be increased, with a resulting decrease in the skin friction coefficient, by means of injecting a foreign gas at a relatively low velocity through a porous surface into the natural boundary layer, thereby causing its thickness to grow by the mixing process which results between the local stream fluid of the natural boundary layer and the injected gas. By the present invention, the same result is achieved by means of the injection of high energy particles or energy quanta, i.e., small particles of mass at high velocities, into the natural boundary layer.

...

In accordance with these objects, the present invention envisions the injection of energy quanta, e.g., alpha, beta or gamma particles by the application of a thin paint-like coating of a radioactive energy emitting substance, such as a radioisotope material, to a surface of a body to generate an ionized plasma adjacent such surface for the absorption, refraction and diffraction of electromagnetic and longitudinal waves propagating through the plasma, as well as for the energization of the boundary layer adjacent such surface with a consequent reduction in skin friction when the surface has relative motion with respect to a surrounding fluid medium.

reply to post by mbkennel


I should get a few minutes loose today, a lot of the root work was done by the Rooshians back in the 60s. I'll try to find the papers that sort of set the stage for it. It would be faster if I could just look in my background stuff files but I'm 1900 miles out of the office.

edit to add - the plasma interacts with the radar by absorbing it and transferring the energy into surface plasmon waves. Generally, it just sucks it up and turns it into heat. The *tricky* parts are many and too inappropriate for me to go into. But consider that any part that "runs dry" will suddenly a) develop fluctuating drag and b) reflect radar and c) generally does this at inopportune times like climbs and banks.

It could help, I suppose, if you had one of those active RAM coatings that reflects oddly when it does, nothing like exploiting the filtering software on the other guy's radar.

reply to post by Bedlam


Thanks. We really need this on commercial craft. Petroleum is never going down to $30 again ever. The airlines have become such obnoxious skinflints and the fares are still going up.

reply to post by mbkennel


Got the call, we're back at the site tonight leaving at about 11pm local to start bright and early. I am going to be cruel by going out catting around with my confederates instead of looking up references. Back in town Wednesday, if all goes according to schedule.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by SageBeno
Ok, well please give me an explanation as detailed as LaViolette's,

Also please give me an explanation as to why the B-52's cost so much when using regular (currently accepted) tech?

His may be detailed, but it's all fiction. If detail was reality, then we'd live in the world of Robert Jordan.

Maybe we do, and we simply have to wait for the wheel to turn a bit more Anyway Star for the RJ reference .. and another star for not being gullible and thinking the B-52 uses anti gravity tech.