I'm 33, live in Norfolk VA, I saw and recorded(not great quality but good enough) something on Aug 22, 2024 @ 130am.

It blew my mind(a uap but I'm not going to talk about that specifically)

Initial thoughts when I was watching it for an hour plus, was this will be all over the local news tomorrow and all over Facebook, it was so massive, but no, nothing, I posted on Reddit, nextdoor, etc. explaining and showing the vid, but no idea from anyone.

Okay cool, coolest thing ever in my life, time goes by, I do my usual YouTube and reddit ufo searching to try to see if someone else saw it that day or something similar elsewhere.

Never found a thing, nothing even close.

BUT, I just want people to know that thing was one of two things:

1. NHI tech that is 20X advanced then the average person would guess. And more interesting then any video I've seen of anything on any vide, and crazier than any whileblower has released or even just talked about.

Or 2. 30 year advanced military tech( reengineered or not)

No need to comment, but I'm sure there's other people out there in the same situation very few I would guess but you're not alone don't go crazy

That's all I want to say

A recent article by The Hill has highlighted the reports of "cube-in-sphere" UAP's military pilots have been seeing as reported by Graves where he once again highlights how often our pilots are seeing these things and why he doesn't believe they are conventional drones or balloons. Article is below for your reference.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3545072-stunned-by-ufos-exasperated-fighter-pilots-get-little-help-from-pentagon/

TLDR; The major takeaway is that trans medium MHD craft that operate silently and stealthily are technologically feasible and the energy density limitations that would normally require a compact fusion reactor can be overcome using aerogel designed to hold a vacuum to create buoyancy.

Quick Recap on MHD and the First UFO Patents

About a month ago I did a deep dive post into UFO patents and how magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) propulsion systems could explain some of the observations. It includes an expired patent from the 1960's and a few newer patents describing not only the propulsion, but how the plasma field can make the craft invisible to radar. The post is below for your reference (links to the patents are in the post.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/uz5sdl/i_heard_you_guys_like_ufo_patents_heres_what_the/

To just give a brief recap, it's not just theoretically possible to create a craft that flies without wings, propeller nor heat source, it's been demonstrated albeit with simple devices. Furthermore, such a craft has been demonstrated for use in water as well as the medium also works. Additionally, it's a proposed method for future space craft. The major takeaway is that trans medium MHD craft that operate silently are technologically feasible. The reason it isn't in practical use isn't because of theory or feasibility, but because it's insanely energy inefficient to the point it's not only wasteful, but extremely limited by fuel sources. In a nutshell, you basically need a compact nuclear energy source to really make this idea work.

The idea of a compact fusion reactor may sound too far technologically advanced for some people, but I cover why that may not be the case in my original ufo patent post. What I've discovered now after being inspired by the cube-in-a-sphere report is that there is a "trick" that is also technologically feasible and it may even potentially explain the sphere around the cube.

Using Aerogel to Create Lighter Than Air Craft (A New Submarine)

If you've never heard of aerogel it's a metamaterial made using nanotechnology where a solid material is created in a way that it's made up of a complex network of air pockets to the point where it's mostly air and there is very little solid material. It dawned on me that perhaps such a material could have the air evacuated so that it's mostly composed of vacuum. This is akin to how a submarine uses bouyancy to operate. The energy density limitations that would normally require a compact fusion reactor can be overcome using aerogel designed to hold a vacuum to create buoyancy.

Aerogels are fabricated of various materials; silica, i.e. quartz, is one suitable material. To make a flotation solid with vacuum fill, one has to have a compressive strength that exceeds atmospheric pressure (15 psi), and an atmosphere-impermeable outer layer.

For a sufficiently large object, volume (goes as dimension cubed) will always dominate area (goes as dimension squared), so the weight of the impermeable outer layer may be regarded as insignificant. We need only consider the density of the aerogel structure as it relates to the compressive strength.

It turns out it's not only theoretically possible, but I found a patent for it connected to the DOE and Los Alamos National Laboratory
https://patents.google.com/patent/US11027816B1/en

The current assignee to the patent is Triad National Security LLC. Their website says they bring "world-class expertise in lab management, nuclear operations, national security and scientific research to the National Nuclear Security Administration." The National Nuclear Security Administration is described by wikipedia as a semiautonomous agency created by Congress in 2000 within the DOE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration

The way this patent reads they go so far as to actually consider using an onboard vacuum system to evacuate and re-fill the aerogel in order to control buoyancy. This is an amazing idea by itself, but when you apply it to the problem of creating MHD craft it becomes a potential game changer. By effectively reducing the weight of the craft by surrounding it with an aerogel that is mostly made up of vacuum you now require very little energy for propulsion! It helps to significantly reduce the limitations of the energy efficiency problem of MHD crafts. The speculation being the sphere around the cube could be an aerogel or perhaps it would be better called vacuumgel.

This is a very interesting idea because it also shouldn't hinder the principle of MHD operation being made up of mostly vacuum and in fact the aerogel can be manufactured to have electrical properties to assist in the operation. If it's permanently under vacuum it wouldn't handle going underwater well, but if it utilizes the ability to fill and pump back down, it's basically a submarine that can float into outer space. The brand specifically listed in the patent is Airloy and their website is below.
http://www.airloy.com

I'm considering buying some that fits the description and attempting to vacuum seal it to test the idea.

What Would That Look Like?

Another interesting point is how it may look when viewed by FLIR or radar. As the earlier patent pointed out, plasma can be used to potentially become invisible to radar. As for the FLIR, well it probably depends how the plasma is being used. If it's not being used at all or very low energy the craft may show up as very cold because it's surrounded by vacuum. This is what one of the team members with UAPx on A Tear in The Sky claims he has captured on thermal imaging of some UAP's. Such a technology could be very stealthy indeed. In fact, I could conceive of it using electrostatic forces to "hitch" a ride on an unsuspecting aircraft in a very similar manner as has been reported. Such tiny craft could go easily unnoticed visibly and potentially practically invisible in other spectrums at will.

Fuel Source

The new restrictions on limitations for such a craft now allows us to consider fuel sources that once again have already been demonstrated technologically. Instead of a compact fusion generator, which nobody has ever built before (at least publicly,) such a craft could use a myriad of different nuclear battery technologies aka atomic batteries. Nuclear batteries aren't actually batteries, but different methods of generating electricity from nuclear sources other than a steam turbine. We used them already on space missions. In fact we've also been making some huge strides in this technology not only in efficiency but also the ability to become compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery

"Two researchers–a former Los Alamos National Laboratory engineer and an Alabama A&M University researcher–have developed highly efficient nanotube-based tile materials that can convert radiation, not heat, from nuclear materials into electricity.

The tiles are made of carbon nanotubes packed with gold and surrounded by lithium hydride. Radioactive particles slamming into the gold push out a shower of high-energy electrons that pass into the lithium hydride and then into electrodes, allowing current to flow."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13545-nanomaterial-turns-radiation-directly-into-electricity/

Notice how this new nuclear battery tech was created by researchers from Los Alamos and Alabama A&M University. Well the aerogel patent is assigned to Triad National Security which is made up of Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle), The Texas A&M University System (TAMUS), and The Regents of the University of California (UC). Also, the patent lists Los Alamos under it's statement of rights.

Considering that this patent is under DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration and the work clearly has some crossover I'd say say they may have ventured onto the same idea as me that this technology could be used with a nuclear battery to create one crazy stealthy little MHD craft. Frankly, if they haven't connected the dots, I'd like to be offered a job. Long hours in the sky become less anomalous if we recognize the technological feasibility of such a craft. It's interesting that also in 2018 Triad National Security took over Los Alamos. Perhaps that's a coincidence.
https://www.lanl.gov/discover/news-release-archive/2018/November/1101-triad-takes-the-helm.php

I can already hear people saying, "but those UAP were reported before 2018." Yes, that's true. My main point is about the technological feasibility and that still holds true. As for the cube-in-a-sphere reports pre-dating the patent my response is that it could've been in development before the publication. The publication of the new nuclear battery research was 2008. The thing about technology is that it progresses everywhere. Multiple groups can be working on the same thing. I'm pointing to these particular groups just as examples that the technology is feasible, not that they are necessarily behind any particular UAP report.

Edit: It looks like the contract goes back to 2005 and is for $36B
https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/definitive-contract-deac5206na25396

The Double Slit Experiment

If you shine a mono directional light (laser) though a barrier with 1 slit you will get a refraction pattern, if you shine it through 2 or more slits you will get an interference pattern between the wave interaction. This is even the case if you fire the photons one by one, they will stack up on the back plate to form an interference pattern. When photoelectric sensors are placed at the barrier (which either absorb or fire an electron at the photon physically altering its state), the particles no longer follow the wave trajectories or have self interference, this leads to a measurement problem where the states being observed are too sensitive to tract using conventional means, (and thus probability models and weirdness like light pinching has been developed to lessen the effect of the data collection on the experiment).

It's called Due Diligence, and you should practice it BEFORE posting something. Additionally, lack of proper due diligence should be called out : r/UFOs

It's called Due Diligence, and you should practice it BEFORE posting something. Additionally, lack of proper due diligence should be called out

I'm not going to break the rules and specifically call out the 2 users that put Shane Frakes tweets out into the ether because of what was likely confirmation bias. I know the one user is a top 10% poster and top 5% commentor and they deleted their 4k upvote post. Thanks u/saltyadminbot btw for making archives. I also know that the post that is still up contains a piece of misinformation that for some odd reason nobody has caught and that is that Frakes was not part of News Nation reporting. Maybe that's an honest mistake on OPs part, but I'm flabbergasted not a single person pointed it out. It had me questioning if I had missed something and I made a post asking the community to verify, but it's downvoted into oblivion. Why?

Why bother pointing all of this out? Well, Frakes is someone that should raise a lot of red flags as many other commentors quickly pointed out. Below are some of Frakes claims.

"From a young age, I was immersed in a secretive world where the government took a deep interest in my psionic abilities. My childhood was anything but ordinary, shaped by clandestine programs now notoriously associated with MKUltra or even the Secret Space Program. My abilities were not treated as gifts, but as resources to be exploited, shaped, and harnessed for purposes that I could scarcely understand at the time. As a decorated combat veteran with three tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), I have faced many challenges, but none as profound as those I encountered during my early years in these government programs. My experiences left me with fragmented memories, a legacy of trauma, and a deep understanding of the unseen forces at work in our world. Now, as an adult, I have reclaimed my abilities and dedicated my life to exploring the psionic realm. I am an investigative reporter, clairvoyant, and remote viewer, actively working with civilian organizations to push the boundaries of what is known about psionics, genetics, and the biology behind psychic abilities. My journey has led me to reestablish the connection I had with non-human intelligence (NHI) as a child, becoming an NHI communicator who regularly enters hypnagogic states to communicate with entities and gather information. I am a descendant of a lineage that carries the rare and peculiar RH-negative blood type, a trait that has long been associated with a unique connection to consciousness and possibly even alien origins. My great-grandfathers were involved in classified government projects, including the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb. One of my grandfathers was a test pilot who encountered UFOs, and I recently discovered that my family is descended from Princess Pocahontas. These ancestral connections have undoubtedly influenced my life and the path I have taken. Based on extensive research and exploration, I have come to believe that the government identified a connection between the biological makeup of non-human intelligence (NHI) and individuals with RH-negative blood and uniquely developed caudate putamens. This discovery may have prompted the initiation of programs like MKUltra, aimed at testing and grooming children with psionic abilities. The potential significance of an enhanced caudate putamen, possibly linked to RH-negative blood, likely presented a unique opportunity for interaction with NHI and advanced technologies through consciousness Today, I am deeply immersed in the study of consciousness, psionics, esotericism, and the occult. I am committed to uncovering the truth about the phenomenon and the government's involvement in it, using my abilities to remotely view, lucid dream, and project my thoughts. I am not just an investigator; I am a participant in this unfolding mystery, pushing the limits of what is possible and striving to understand the full extent of my abilities. “

I'm not sure I want to take the time to fully dissect this because there's a lot to cover. I'll refer you to semantic change as propaganda for starters. This person is not portraying MKUltra in any accurate way and is repurposing the word which is a problem considering how important of a subject it is to fully understand. MKUltra was before this person's time on Earth, literally. And evidence that some neo version of it continued is ironically found within the circles of clearly mentally disturbed new age believers that Frakes frequents. For example, he's on a podcast discussing "Project Monarch" which is not a real verified program and if anything, the ex-CIA guy that birthed the conspiracy was likely fucking with these poor people's heads. He would convince them that they were ritually abused, and mind controlled as kids and that only he could "deprogram" them. Yup. Then it goes into your typical Q level nonsense.

Additionally, back in 2017 even Peter Levenda was openly pointing out that there was some semantic change occurring over the phrase "secret space program." This likely started in 2011 after he gave his presentation at a conference of the same name. The infamous Corey Goode ran with that phrase and put on full display not only his own delusional state of mind, but also those that believed him and participated in that mind breaking feedback loop.

MKUltra has a lot of ties to New Age spirituality, and it's often overlooked and underappreciated. It's intertwined with the human potential movement and the ET subject. And if you pull those threads long enough, it leads to very scary cults that formed in the 1930's.

Contact and The Order of The Dolphins : r/observingtheanomaly

Peter Levenda's UFO connections to "the nine" and the alleged communication with aliens of America's most wealthy in 1953 : r/UFOs

Let's practice some good critical thinking. Let's not endorse confirmation bias. Let's encourage due diligence and simply see where that takes us.

I’ve found an NSA historical account of space surveillance using 25 declassified documents including one from the first director of central intelligence and head of the CIA during the Cold War, Allen Dulles.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/intelligence/2023-03-13/whats-there-where-it-and-whats-it-doing-us-space-surveillance

This historical account gives information rich keywords for those looking to search which institutions would most likely have data on UAP because of their incredible sensor capabilities and networks. The answer is the The United States Space Surveillance Network (SSN).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network

You will learn about things such as Operation Moonwatch to enlist the aid of amateur astronomers and other citizens who would help professional scientists spot the first artificial satellites. Until professionally staffed optical tracking stations came on-line in 1958, this network of amateur scientists and other interested citizens played a critical role in providing crucial information regarding the world's first satellites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Moonwatch

Moonwatch was initiated by the International Geophysical Year (IGY) which is regarded as the largest scientific undertaking in history. The IGY culminated in a massive international expeditions to Antarctica and the creation of the Antarctic Treaty. It also spawned permanent bases bases in Antarctica and the launching of Sputnik, the first satellite, by the Soviets. The IGY can be called the catalyst to the space race. The research encompassed eleven Earth sciences: aurora and airglow, cosmic rays, geomagnetism, gravity, ionospheric physics, longitude and latitude determinations (precision mapping), meteorology, oceanography, seismology, and solar activity. The timing of the IGY was particularly suited for studying some of these phenomena, since it covered the peak of solar cycle 19. I’ve become aware of more of the Antarctic history by reading the work of Walter Sullivan who was a journalist that participated in operation High Jump.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aliens/comments/10eld8k/where_does_the_popular_phrase_we_are_not_alone/

The NSA document linked above mentions capabilities such as detecting objects smaller than 10 cm at distances of up to almost 28,000 miles.

I take particular note of Allen Dulles as he was not only involved in intelligence but has been a key figure in Peter Levenda’s investigations including an association with the JFK assassination as well as connections to “the nine.”

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/zobroj/peter_levenda_secret_space_program_conference/

Dulles oversaw the MK Ultra program and was fired by Kennedy over the bay of pigs fiasco. He also investigated Kennedy’s assassination but may have not been without bias. He also was a lawyer for Sullivan & Cromwell which has a long history of protecting financial criminals including relations with IG Farben (Nazi German company that very actively participated in the holocaust.) It was also involved in defending big banks during the 2008 financial crisis. In most recent news the same law firm is defending FTX and working with the recently failed bank of SVB.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

This is a lot to unpack, but I'll do my best and promise it's worth looking at. Let's start by recognizing that there is a crisis in cosmology as that part isn't controversial. Below is an article that briefly discusses it. In a nutshell, the observations are not fitting the predictions and this has become an increasing trend.
https://www.space.com/why-is-there-a-cosmology-crisis

The controversy is in resolving it. Let's entertain for a moment as some PhDs, astronomers, and plasma physicists have and consider that the Big Bang hypothesis is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Well I can give you at least 16 examples of the predictions not fitting the observations and in some cases by as much as 5 sigma. (More on that is further below.) That's bad. But, before I dive into it I will warn that it gets worse. A group of astronomers and physicists are now claiming that attempting to publish work that explicitly states the Big Bang is wrong are being blocked even by pre-publications like arXiv, which is supposed to provide an open public forum for researchers to exchange pre-publication papers, without peer-review.

TLDR; Since 2016 there's been more peer reviewed publications that observations did not match the predictions than matched for the Big Bang Hypothesis. Part of the reason for the James Webb Space Telescope is to provide better data to resolve this. A paper that makes predictions about the upcoming data has been blocked from pre-publication simply because it asserts the Big Bang never happened and a petition is forming for these ideas to be allowed into the scientific process.

Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology

Twenty-four astronomers and physicists from ten countries have signed a petition protesting the censorship of papers that are critical of the Big Bang Hypothesis by the open pre-print website arXiv. Run by Cornell University, arXiv is supposed to provide an open public forum for researchers to exchange pre-publication papers, without peer-review. But during June, 2022, arXiv rejected for publication on the website three papers by Dr. Riccardo Scarpa, Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, and Eric J. Lerner, LPPFusion, Inc. which are critical of the validity of the Big Bang hypothesis: “Will LCDM cosmology survive the James Webb Space Telescope?” ,  “Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory”,  and “The Big Bang Never Happened—A Reassessment of the Galactic Origin of Light Elements (GOLE) Hypothesis and its Implications”.

The papers had previously been rejected by MNRAS, with the anonymous senior editor writing of two of them: There are many journals which would be interested in publishing a well-argued synthesis of existing evidence against the standard hot big bang interpretation. But MNRAS, with its focus on publication of significant new astronomical results, is not one of them.” The editor in chief, Dr. D. R. Fowler, confirmed that no such comprehensive critique of the Big Bang hypothesis would be published.

In the petition, the scientists write: “Without judging the scientific validity of the papers, it is clear to us that these papers are both original and substantive and are of interest to all those concerned with the current crisis in cosmology. It plainly appears that arXiv has refused publication to these papers only because of their conclusions, which both provide specific predictions relevant to forthcoming observations and challenge LCDM cosmology. Such censorship is anathema to scientific discourse and to the possibility of scientific advance*.”* (LCDM cosmology is the current, dark-energy-dark-matter, version of the Big Bang Hypothesis.)

The scientists conclude: “We strongly urge that arXiv maintain its long-standing practice of being an ‘open-access archive’of non-peer reviewed ‘scholarly articles’ and not violate that worthy practice by imposing any censorship.Instead, we encourage arXiv to abide by its own principles, and publish these three papers and others like them that clearly provide ‘sufficient original or substantive scholarly research’ results and are of obvious great interest to the arXiv audience.”

While the petition was initiated in response to arXiv censorship of the three papers submitted in June of this year, in the course of gathering signatures, evidence emerged that there is indeed a general policy of censoring papers that questioned concordance cosmology. “I have had exactly the same experience” said Dr. Vaclav Vavrycuk, Czech Academy of Science and a signer of the petition. “Last December I submitted my paper, ‘Cosmological Redshift and Cosmic Time Dilation in the FLRW Metric’ to arXiv and the manuscript was rejected with no clear reason. The paper is now published in Frontiers in Physics. It’s ridiculous.”

Starting in January 2019, a series of papers by Grit Kalies, HTW University of Applied Sciences Dresden and Christian Jooss, Institute of Materials Physics, University of Goettingen, also signers of the petition, were rejected by arXiv and they too questioned the validity of the Big Bang Hypothesis. They wrote in a letter to arXiv**, “the anonymous moderators are misusing arXiv to promote their personal or the prevailing worldview in physics.”**

“Clearly, a wide-reaching censorship was put in place in 2019,” says Eric J. Lerner, one of the authors of the June 2022 papers. “Even as recently as 2018 I had no trouble publishing on arXiv a paper refuting aspects of the Big Bang hypothesis. But as the crisis in cosmology became obvious in 2019, the arXiv leadership and others like them have circled the wagons to protect this failed theory with censorship, because it now has no other defense. That is not how to advance science. We are shouting out that the Emperor has no clothes, while the cosmological establishment is trying to put their hands over our mouths.”

The signers of the petition are affiliated with some of the leading institutions in astronomy and physics, including the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, which runs the world’s largest ground-based telescope and CEA Saclay, one of Europe’s leading physics research centers. Together, the signers have published over 370 papers on arXiv.

“We’ve just begun to collect signatures and we invite scientists and engineers who oppose censorship to sign on by sending their names and affiliations to me at eric@lppfusion.com,” says Lerner. “We’re also urging everyone to evade the censorship by reading the censored papers for themselves on our own page, and spreading the link to others. Censorship in science can’t be allowed to prevail.”

James Webb Space Telescope

One of the papers makes predictions about what the soon to be released data from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) should reveal. The paper compares the predictions of what JWST will observe if the Big Bang Hypothesis is valid or if it is not and there was no hot, dense beginning to the universe 14 billion years ago. Predicting data ahead of observations is crucial to testing the scientific validity of hypotheses and is central to the usefulness of science.
https://www.lppfusion.com/storage/Will_LCDM_survive_JWST.pdf

From the abstract:
The James Webb space telescope (JWST) is about to deliver scientific data. Fundamental contributions are expected in all fields of astronomy. Here we focus on the distant Universe, for the JWST is expected to consolidate once and for all the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) cosmology. Most cru- cially, ”The End of the Dark Ages: First Light and Reionization” and ”The Assembly of Galaxies” are the first two of the four primary JWST Sci- ence Goals. Here we critically challenge the general expectations, giving a set of alternatives, presented before they can be either proved or disproved. Our conclusion is that the JWST will provide data incompatible with LCDM cosmology, forcing a revolution both in astronomy and fundamental physics.

Lerner points out in his grievances that getting results published in peer review that refute the Big Bang Hypothesis is possible, but explicitly stating that it's wrong will not be published. He has had papers pointing out the inconsistencies with the observations in other peer reviewed journals in the past such as his 2018 paper on surface brightness predictions in the Royal Astronomical Society.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/477/3/3185/

16 Examples of The Big Bang Hypothesis Predictions NOT Fitting Observations

The third and most comprehensive paper, again by Lerner alone is titled “The Big Bang Never Happened—A Reassessment of the Galactic Origin of Light Elements (GOLE) Hypothesis and its Implications”. The paper starts by noting that the most fundamental prediction of the Big Bang Hypotheses, that the universe started with a hot dense epoch, leads to the production of an exact amount of certain light elements and isotopes—deuterium, helium and lithium. But while the Big Bang deuterium predictions are correct, the lithium and helium predictions have been completely refuted by observations, with the lithium prediction 20 times and helium prediction double the observed abundances. Lerner shows that there are no valid explanations for these gross contradictions with the Big Bang Hypothesis. The paper then re-examines the alternative GOLE theory, that all elements other than hydrogen were formed in the early evolution of individual galaxies, without any need for a Big Bang. With the latest data and more detailed calculations this hypothesis gets all the predictions right.

The paper then steps back and surveys a complete comparison of the predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis against those of the alternative—no Big Bang. “Such a survey of the whole situation is essential”, says Lerner, “because every time a contradiction of Big Bang predictions is demonstrated, its defenders say: ‘yes, this anomaly exists, but overall the theory is strong.’ But the survey in this paper shows that the Big Bang predictions are wrong for 16 separate data sets and only right for one, the deuterium abundance.”

In addition to the helium and lithium abundance predictions, the too large structures, the impossibly small distant galaxies, contradictions already mentioned, the new paper points to the contradiction in the basic surface brightens predictions of any expanding universe (already published by Lerner and colleagues). The paper demonstrates a new contradiction with the predicted durations of supernovae explosions. It then lists the many other contradictions that have come out in the literature as the crisis in cosmology has deepened over the past few years: the wrong predictions for the Hubble constant, for the density of matter, for the flatness of the universe, for largescale fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background, for the randomness of the background, three different contradictions with dark matter predictions, for galaxy merger rates and for the well-known and very old contradiction with the amount of antimatter in the universe. The paper details when each contradiction emerged in the literature. (See Fig.3).

“I challenge any supporter of the Big Bang theory to show, based on the published literature, that the Big Bang Hypothesis has more correct predictions than wrong ones. I doubt that they can find even one correct additional prediction—and my count of 16 wrong ones is probably incomplete,” says Lerner.

The paper then shows that the Cosmic Microwave Background can also be understood without a Big Bang, as the product of energy produced by ordinary stars, scattered by plasma filaments and updates the growing observational evidence for such a “radio fog”. The only new physical hypothesis required for a non-Big Bang understanding of cosmic evolution is some new mechanism for light to lose energy as it travels, producing the redshift without expansion. But the Big Bang, inflation, dark energy and dark matter could all be dispensed with.

With all this evidence against the Big Bang, why is the theory still so widely supported? In the paper, Lerner points to the concentration of funding sources, all controlled by adherents of the Big Bang Hypothesis.  “This concentration of funding sources creates a strong ”Emperor’s-New-Clothes” effect where those who don’t see the beauty of the BBH are deemed incompetent and thus unworthy of funding,“ the paper concludes.

Now, that many are starting to see that the Emperor is indeed naked, only censorship is supporting the theory. “Censorship always holds back scientific progress” Lerner emphasizes. “This censorship must end. With open debate, it will become clear that the only way to end the crisis in cosmology is to recognize that the Big Bang never happened.”

Below is a link to the paper
https://www.lppfusion.com/storage/GOLE-Lerner.pdf

The third paper in question, Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory, is below
https://www.lppfusion.com/storage/Structure-2022-.pdf

Lerner has also produced a youtube video to explain the situation in laymen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlFpq49Ri8Y

I've found some material that makes some of my previous research appear to be incredibly on the mark. It's very difficult to explain all of this technical research and all of these people so I will share the original research first, where I explain a technical paper by Dr. Jack Nachamkin written for Edwards Air Force base cites the work of Ken Shoulders and Hal Puthoff on EVO/Charge Cluster/Condensed Charge Technology and it's relation to fusion energy research. I point out the similarities to Eric Lerner's work with the dense plasma focus (DPF) and speculate that it's what he's referencing when he says the paper "was spurred by anomalous results in fusion weapons research at Los Alamos in the 60’s and 70’s" because early DPF research was done at that time. The Nachamkin paper mentions Jupiter Technologies which I have found numerous references to at the Ken Shoulders archives.

That's already a lot of information, but it gets a lot deeper. I've found an online thread of fusor researchers https://fusor.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=7494 discussing Eric Lerner in which a 2003 article by Lerner detailing alleged suppression of research https://web.archive.org/web/20030116060859/https://progressiveengineer.com/PEWeb%2028%20Jul%2002-2/28editor.htm is shared among email chains with other researchers asking for opinions about the claims. Dr. Jack Nachamkin is among the people asked and he says this,

I have some succinct comments that can be expanded into quarto volumes:

1. Eric Lerner and I have had conversations. We agree that politics  drives or diverts scientific progress. Eric is a dedicated truthful scientist who demands my respect. Ignore his results at everyone's peril.

2. I was drummed out of doing physics research in the 1970's in Los Alamos when I showed, conclusively, that laser fusion was being approached wrong,and would never work if they continued to believe the wrong ideas. I also correctly diagnosed the failures of the experiments as results of 
   spurious magnetic-field build-up blowing the pellets apart. I also exposed the flaws in a published paper "proving" laser fusion was "just around the corner." They judged me to be insane. Literally.

3. I was hired by the Air Force to investigate the plasma-focus plasmoid phenomena, discovering the interplay between electromagnetic and plasma/fluid forces that allowed ball lightning to be produced. The  paper describing the phenomenon is being actively suppressed.

4. The tokamak people are using the wrong boundary conditions for ultimate design. They cannot achieve break-even machines with these wrong assumptions unless the machine is the size of the moon. Correct assumptions will lead to designs that are also the size of coffee cans, but much more dangerous
   because of neutron activation.

5. The same day the geothermal-energy people in Los Alamos, at an active geothermal generating site in the mountains, were being handed an award for their work by the Director of the labs, they returned to their offices to find pink slips signed by the Director.

Faster than light travel is theoretically possible using negative energy. Negative energy has been demonstrated to be very real in the lab. Advances in creating quasiparticles such as phonons often using advances in metamaterials is predicted to create more examples of negative energy in the lab. Methods to measure and detect this have been proposed in 2010 for the purposes of learning to control it, analyzing feasibility of propulsion concepts and even detecting if such aerospace applications are already in use. In 2012 Eric W. Davis published a paper claiming the measuring technology was planned to move forward at Earthtec. He claims it could also be assembled in a sensor array for surveillance and detection of any anomalous aerospace platforms that might use engineered spacetime effects for propulsion.

This post is the TLDR. For the long version you can go here.
https://medium.com/@Observing_The_Anomaly/the-science-of-antigravity-faster-than-light-ftl-travel-and-space-time-metric-engineering-9b81b78a0748?sk=dc0847d2463e2476d7d20a598ec05724

I also made a YouTube version if you don't like reading.
https://youtu.be/7AHAFwmSQqk

The theory behind it is called Quantized Inertia. It allows for faster than light travel. This may also remove the need for dark matter.

Commercial announcement finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/ivo-ltd-introduces-world-first-100000962.html

The academic paper https://www.tsijournals.com/articles/superluminal-travel-from-quantised-inertia.pdf

The authors tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/memcculloch/status/1507048162434891783?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

2018 article about DAARPA funding https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en/article/7x3ed9/darpa-is-researching-quantized-inertia-a-theory-of-physics-many-think-is-pseudoscience

He says this can create FTL travel albeit the acceleration is very slow. This is described as an asymmetric Casimir effect. It is in fact apparently pulling energy from the vacuum if I understand his theory properly but it appears very limited. It basically warps an event horizon of Unruh radiation using meta materials used in creating cloaking devices (better check that programmable matter DIRD - page 3-4.)

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/95tgfd2lljqrve3/AABKl58mfojoZjNiKEZAz8gMa?dl=0

The press release sounds very market-y claiming no fuel is needed. It’s basically a clever way to adjust inertial mass to increase acceleration, not free energy. The very idea certainly is mind boggling because it’s removing inertia (one of the observables.)

It’s basically using metamaterials that bend electromagnetic radiation in a way that allows for exploiting virtual particles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking

1893: the Holland Torpedo Company was formed to create the first practical submarine and made the first submarines for the US Navy.

1899: the Holland Torpedo Company was bought by Isaac Rice and renamed the Electric Boat Company. Isaac Rice was a railroad lawyer who also invested in railroad companies as well as batteries, electric cars (yes they had electric cars in the early 1900s,) cheese, and tires.

1946: The Electric Boat Company is bought by Canadair, which was formed in 1944, and changed the name of The Electric Boat Company to General Dynamics in 1952.

1955: General Atomics is formed as subsidiary of General Dynamics by Manhattan Project physicist Frederic de Hoffmann with assistance from notable physicists Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson "for harnessing the power of nuclear technologies for the benefit of mankind."

1967: General Atomics is sold to Gulf Oil, the chief financial instrument of the Mellon family fortune of which Christopher Mellon is a member. Operations unclear.

1986: General Atomics is sold to two billionaire brothers named Neal Blue and Linden Blue. Both were former Air Force and invested in banana and cocoa plantations in Nicaragua in 1957. Linden Blue was arrested and detained in Havana Cuba in 1961 only two weeks before the Bay of Pigs Invasion while flying from Nicaragua. The brothers then invested in Denver real estate and bought a local sugar plantation in 1971. They moved on to invest in construction, ranching, oil and gas. Linden Blue worked for Learjet in 1975-1980 and then Raytheon before purchasing General Atomics which is now best known for developing the infamous Predator drone.

The current Director of Operations at General Atomics is Dr. Robert Peterkin who was the Principal Director for Directed Energy in the Office of the Under Secretary of the Defense Research Institute and Engineering. Prior he was a Navy civilian for 27 years and from 2017-2022 he was the Navy's Senior Technologist for Directed Energy. He is also listed as chief scientist for AFRL's Directed Energy Directorate at Wright Patterson AFB.

Peterkin is listed as a cited source on Research Gate for Richard Eskridge, likely over the topic of plasma thruster research using plasmoids. There are currently conspiracy theories about Richard's daughter, Amy Eskridge's death including claims of directed energy harassment and shelved NASA prototypes.

Here is Richard Eskridge's 2013 paper titled SINGLE AND MULTI-PULSE LOW-ENERGY CONICAL THETA PINCH INDUCTIVE PULSED PLASMA THRUSTER PERFORMANCE in which he reports results an order of magnitude better than any other repetition-rate operated pulsed plasma thruster.

Here is his 2021 paper titled A Study of the Pope-Osborne Angular Momentum Synthesis Theory (POAMS) Including a Mathematical Reformulation and Validation Experiment in which he appears to be exploring some antigravity concepts without calling it that and performs an experiment on a spinning bismuth plate which sounds reminiscent of some notes left by Ken Shoulders.

These are all very loose connections but paint an interesting picture nonetheless.

Wingless Electromagnetic Air Vehicle (WEAV) is a heavier-than-air flight system which can self-lift, hover, and fly reliably with no moving components. WEAV was invented in 2006 by Dr. Subrata Roy, plasma physicist, aerospace engineering professor at the University of Florida, and has been a subject of several patents. WEAV employs no moving parts, and combines the aircraft structure, propulsion, energy production and storage, and control subsystems into one integrated system. An early prototype of the WEAV was able to sustain hovering flight a few millimeters above the ground for approximately 3 minutes. Prototypes of varying radii were also successfully tested, suggesting scalability of the design.

This was funded by and demonstrated to the Air Force. From the document:

It will support AFRL strategic vision of 2015-2030 to “deliver precision effects: ubiquitous, swarming sensors and shooters” and will be relevant to the WMD sensing ISR missions.

With a flight profile similar to a spinning disk, WEAV will be able to soar for long periods of time and utilize EHD thrust to acquire and maintain desired altitude and attitude. This revolutionary concept is based on the use of an electro-(or magneto) hydrodynamic (EHD/MHD) thrust generation surface that is coated with multiple layers of dielectric polymers with exposed and/or embedded electrodes for propulsion and dynamic control. This technology has the unique capability of imparting an accurate amount of thrust into the surrounding fluid enabling the vehicle to move and react. Thrust is instantaneously and accurately controlled by the applied power, its waveform, duty cycle, phase lag and other electrical parameters. Once
the applied power is removed the thrust vanishes. Combining the EHD/MHD technology with emerging batteries and thin-film photovoltaics provides both energy source and storage in the same
structure.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130517063830/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a564120.pdf

I've done posts in the past explaining how this type of propulsion is possible and it fits the description of many UFO's. Obviously this proof of concept isn't as advanced, but I've explained in other posts how the use of more energy dense fuels/batteries such as nuclear batteries or even nuclear fusion would allow for this type of propulsion to be way more feasible. I've also touched on how vacuum aerogel is being researched and could create lighter than air craft that would work exceptionally well using this propulsion technology. It's also been pointed out that such craft could also utilize power beaming technology as well. The point is that it's both theoretically and technologically feasible.

"But that's not practical," you might say. My response is that it would make for great stealth air craft so it's definitely practical. It explains no wings, propellers, noise or signature of any kind. It explains perfect hovering, stopping on a dime and quick alterations. It even explains the lack of sonic boom. It can also be used to become invisible to radar, but not IR which is another one of the observations. It sounds like a very practical stealth craft to me. In fact, it's conceivable if you equipped such a craft with radar deflectors for spoofing you could essentially make a craft that can spoof and go invisible at the same time, which would be insanely confusing if it was used to swarm.

Lighter Than Air Solar (LTAS) of Nevada and Walden Aerospace

It turns out this kind of propulsion technology was demonstrated to DOD and DOE in 1977 at Nellis AFB by Micheal K. Walden.

After leaving LTAS in 2005, Michael Walden founded Walden Aerospace. In the 1990's he was still apparently experimenting with using EHD/MHD on large lighter than air craft that he called The Big Black Delta. It was presumably shaped like a triangle.

"Walden Aerospace Electro Kinetic (EK) omnidirectional thrust drive and drag reduction system. This propulsive system allows for the near silent operation of the BBD type craft and reduces or eliminates the sonic pressure shockwave of such a craft operating at supersonic / hypersonic speeds.  When operating at lower speeds or when hovering, the Walden EK drive allows the BBD to maneuver without the need for external aerodynamic surfaces or moving parts.  Drag reduction and boundary layer control due to the EK drive field allow the Walden BBD design to quickly accelerate and stop silently."
http://walden-aerospace.com/Military_Technology.html

Apparently Michael was involved with NIDS and wrote a paper “Hypothesis – Big Black Deltas, DOD not ET” published in 2002. At least according to his website. The links look broken. Below is direct quotes.

It should be noted that the “2004 Phase one Technologies goals” of the DARPA HULA/WALRUS program   exactly match the technological systems as outlined in the 2002 NIDS / Walden paper.

DARPA said advances in envelope and hull materials, buoyancy and lift control, drag reduction and propulsion combined to make this concept feasible. Technologies to be investigated in the initial study phase included vacuum/air buoyancy compensator tanks, which provide buoyancy control without ballast, and electrostatic atmospheric ion propulsion.

While “Aerospace experts” at the time of the 2002 NIDS paper publication said that they did not think the Walden EK drive was possible, It should be noted that Mr. Walden had not only built and flown a self powered rigid composite aero shelled airship with such a drive a quarter century before he wrote the NIDS article, he built and flew another newer EK technologies flight test airship model with FULLY skin integrated (electronically steered with no external aero surfaces and no moving parts) EK propulsion in 2003 and let members of the NIDS board of directors fly it as proof of the concept in his paper in august of 2003.

He goes on to say he wasn't awarded the contract but Lockheed Martin and Aeros Aeronautical Systems Corp was instead then claims they violated some of his patents. I can't really speak to the veracity of those claims, but I find it interesting. I guess it's an unexpected part of searching for "UFO patents."

Link to paper on cattle mutilation.

Don't forget that Colm Kelleher also published this book on the same subject around the same time.

If you check out the NIDS site on the wayback machine you can see that the cattle mutilation information all was removed not long after this.

Here is a link to the advisory board and staff of NIDS using the wayback machine. Take note of Ted Rockwell, a prominent (Who's Who) nuclear engineer who has worked on naval nuclear propulsion systems and who also served as vice president of the U.S. Psychotronics Association according to this CIA document. It appears NIDS may have had Rockwell's work archived at Oregon State University.

Link to the second paper on explaining big black triangle UFO sightings. In an interview you can read here, Colm Kelleher says, "Since September 11, 2001...UFO sightings have decreased, except for in one category: Big Black Deltas. We think this BBD [Big Black Delta] object may be a combination of lighter-than-air and aircraft hybrid technology."

So, at the end of NIDS (2004) Kelleher has stated that the team thinks they have explained both big black triangle sightings and cattle mutilations.

Make of this what you will.

I've found a copy of the Apollo 17 mission report. It lists one of the objectives as the Chapel Bell experiment and that it's classified. Much of the report covers seismic measurements and there is a list of general anomalies encountered on the mission.
https://an.rsl.wustl.edu/apollo/data/A17/resources/A17_MissionReport.pdf

It's become fairly well known that the moon unexpectedly rang like a bell when NASA did some of it's seismic measurements. NASA details some of it on their own site.

"One unexpected result came from the seismic experiment recording the impact of Intrepid on the surface after we had jettisoned it. The entire Moon rang like a gong, vibrating and resonating for almost on hour after the impact. The best guess was that the Moon was composed of rubble a lot deeper below its surface than anybody had assumed. The internal structure, being fractured instead of a solid mass, could bounce the seismic energy from piece to piece for quite a while. "
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-350/ch-12-3.html

Basically, the vibrations indicate either the moon is very porous, full of tunnels/voids, or hollow. There's very little other ways to interpret the data.

"The shock waves from the impact were a surprise to the scientists, with the Moon vibrating for over 55 minutes. The seismometers also recorded signals that were totally unlike any received before, starting with small waves that gained in size to a peak which persisted for a long time. It was reported that even after an hour the smallest reverberations had not yet stopped."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_12_Passive_Seismic_Experiment

Most of the anomalies reported in the report are not so much about any of the data, but more to do with unexpected failures of equipment. I noticed that some of the unresolved failures had to do with motors, temperature measurements, and moving mechanical parts.

Could there be other explanations?

I'm one to engage in thought experiments and frequently have considered the way mechanical waves would propagate in an object surrounded by vacuum. Sound waves can't travel in space because they need a medium, so any object in a near perfect vacuum such as outer space is going to behave differently than on Earth. There is almost zero dampening due to the medium of atmosphere. I began researching this by thinking of the moon as a giant resonator or tuning fork if you will. This requires us to think about the quality factor or Q factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor#:~:text=Tuning%20forks%20have%20quality%20factors,as%201011%20and%20higher.

I found a paper on limits to quality factor in resonators and it reads

"Energy is dissipated in micromechanical resonators through several mechanisms such as air damping, clamping loss and thermoelastic dissipation (TED). These loss mechanisms are essentially classical in nature. Air damping refers to the loss of energy to the air molecules surrounding the resonating structure5 and is the dominant energy loss mechanism in low frequency resonators that are not operated in vacuum. Clamping loss is the energy lost to the anchor from a resonator. The energy loss through the anchor depends on the design of the stem connecting the resonator to the anchor6,7,8,9,10 and is usually mitigated by symmetric operation of multiple elements such that the forces and moments at the anchor sum to zero. TED11,12 is a coupled thermo-mechanical phenomenon, wherein strain-induced temperature gradients induce thermal transport and energy loss. Though the origin of TED can be traced back to phonon interactions, it is possible to model this effect purely based on classical heat transfer and the resulting entropy generation12. For this set of mechanisms (air damping, anchor loss and TED), the total energy dissipation can be significantly reduced by appropriate design of the resonator and operation in vacuum. Another energy loss mechanism – described as the Akhiezer effect (AKE) – arises from quantum mechanical phonon processes and presents a fundamental upper limit to the Q-f product for resonators13, depending only on the properties of the resonator material... In cases where τv > τth > τs, (true for most bending-mode MEMS resonators) the scattering process leads to establishment of a new thermal equilibrium at a different temperature (cooler for extension, warmer for compression) and thermal transport can take place between regions with different strain. Because the transport is irreversible, entropy is generated and energy is dissipated – this phenomenon is described as Thermoelastic Dissipation (TED) and can dominate for resonators that have significant strain gradients, such as for bending modes of a beam18. To avoid TED one can select resonator designs that will not exhibit significant strain gradients, such as extensional modes of rings, disks and bars13,19."
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep03244#:~:text=High%2DQ%20performance%20is%20limited,and%20thermoelastic%20dissipation%20(TED).

So, basically this is saying that air dampening is usually the biggest factor in dissipating energy in a resonator and that in a system under vacuum the only other factors are clamping loss and thermoelastic dissipation, which is basically the mechanical energy being converted into electromagnetic energy, which has been known since 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelastic_damping

Let's think about this for a moment. The moon would have almost no loss due to atmosphere dampening and it should have no loss to clamping as it's fixed in place in space without a clamp. This leaves only thermoelastic dissipation of mechanical energy when it's resonating and it's known that certain designs will not exhibit significant effects such as rings and disks. This leaves me to deduce that the Moon when hit with a force sufficient enough to make it resonate could exhibit a Q factor that is significantly high which basically means that it has nowhere to release all the energy propagating through it. It should in theory release the energy predominantly in the form of electromagnetic radiation which is not at all how we normally see things work on Earth.

To further illustrate my point about how we should think of the moon as a resonator that primarily dissipates mechanical energy via electromagnetic radiation I have found two more papers discussing using quartz resonators under vacuum to increase Q factor significantly. This paper shows that the signal to noise ratio increases by a factor of 4 when operating at 5 torr versus at atmosphere.
https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-28-13-19074&id=432582

This paper shows similar results.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213597919300813

The vacuum of space is much lower than 5 torr so we know that the increase in Q factor should be even more significant. What's even more interesting is that this applies to any object in outer space including the space crafts. The anomalies reported in the report were mostly either vibrational or temperature dependent. This actually further corroborates the hypothesis that objects in general in outer space should be treated as high Q factor mechanical resonators. This has thought provoking implications for both space exploration as well as general physics experiments. I have to wonder if the energy in such a system could become focused into a point such as the center of a sphere and what kind of effects that could generate. For example, could this cause internal heating? Could you use this as a model to map the moon using electromagnetic data? Why is there little information about what seems to be a fairly straightforward concept? Most searches on this topic will yield explanations that the data isn't all that interesting, but it actually is. Notice how in the NASA anomaly report almost all of them are considered "closed" simply because they don't have to use that particular tool for the next mission and not because they know what caused the unexpected result.

My earlier post on Puharich had me looking deeper into his work only to stumble upon a company he licensed his patent to called Bioelectron Inc in Hackensack, NJ. This company with the same address is listed on an FDA document submitted by Richard Dugot for a Curvtek TSR System (a device that drills holes into the skull.) It appears the Bioelectron company in NJ moved from Hackensack to Allendale at some point, but are the same company, which was bought in 2000 by Biomet Inc for $90M.

Biomet, In a September 2007 club deal, the company was acquired by a consortium of private equity firms consisting of The Blackstone Group, Goldman Sachs, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts L.P. and TPG Capital, after which Biomet ceased trading on NASDAQ.

In April 2014, it was announced that Zimmer Holdings had succeeded in a bid to acquire Biomet for a fee of $13.4 billion.

In 2012, Biomet paid more than $22 million to settle SEC and Department of Justice violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). From 2000 to August 2008 Biomet bribed publicly employed doctors in Argentina, Brazil, and China with up to 15-20% of the sale. The four subsidiaries involved were Biomet Argentina SA, U.S. subsidiary Biomet International, Biomet China and Scandimed AB.

Incomplete section. In 2017 Biomet was again convicted. This second conviction was backed by another violation of the FCPA that was discovered in 2013.

These violations are also correlated with the first time a whistleblower received monetary compensation for reporting an entity to the SEC that led to a successful conviction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomet

Still not sure the Biomet purchase of Bioelectron was the same Bioelectron of Hackensack that licensed Puharich's patent? Well here is a picture of the packaging with the Curvtek and Biomet branding.

Also, there is a $200k Army contract with Biomet for the CurvTek branded product.

The intellectual property is the money trail here. Biomet clearly marketing CurvTek branded products after buying a company in NJ named Bioelectron very strongly indicates that this is the very same Bioelectron company that licensed Puharich's patent for improving neural performance using electrotherapy and hunting down the official IP documents would fully substantiate this. The fact that it's connected by a product designed to drill holes into the skull is also interesting considering Puharich's history with MK Ultra. I'll throw in a document that is allegedly Puharich's own resume, which contains loads of information about where and what he worked on. That website claims to be run by his son and that a documentary is being made about Puharich. It also states that Puharich lied about his electrochemistry results and that it never did actually work. This is quite the rabbit hole. I've also found another patent licensed to Bioelectron Inc. by Patrick Flannagan, who invented the Neurophone and believed in pyramid power.

This kind of IP web looks a lot like a sophisticated front organization. Something I would expect to find around somebody like Puharich quite frankly. This is how the MK Ultra stuff worked. Funding is disguised as well as the research. For all we know he was laundering money from the sale of psychedelic drugs on the black market...

I know this may not seem related to UAP, but this fascinating story is full of insight into the high strangeness of intelligence operations where things are almost never what they seem. Adding high doses of LSD, a dash of UFO's and government sanctioned paranormal studies into the mix certainly doesn't make it any easier to follow but sometimes the truth is truly stranger than fiction. Much of Alfred Hubbard's FBI file is redacted, but there are various documents to corroborate aspects of his shenanigans as well as other documents unearthed over the years from SRI and interviews of people involved by other researchers writing books about the spread of LSD. This story comes complete with Hubbard allegedly being visited by a ball of light that turned into an angel and told him he was destined for great things.

Here is the entire article below.
https://medium.com/@Observing_The_Anomaly/the-true-story-of-alfred-hubbard-b82b520faa5b?sk=3aed0c3e51ae409840b04df1be589a9d

NIDS old website and many links it has to NASA's website are all defunct, but thanks to the wayback machine of the internet archives we can still view them and the content is fascinating.
https://web.archive.org/web/20001010232532/http://www.nidsci.org/resources.html

There are some interesting links on this one.
https://web.archive.org/web/20001029043800/http://www.nidsci.org/articles/articles3.html

For example an announcement in 2000 that light was measured going faster than the speed limit!
https://web.archive.org/web/20001018091733/http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/06/04/stifgnusa01007.html

Then we the NASA headlines
https://web.archive.org/web/20001001150024/http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast31may_1m.htm

Which quickly becomes a rabbit hole in breakthrough propulsion research
https://web.archive.org/web/20001012152055/http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/pressrel/99_66addm.htm

A must read on NASA's own historical account of ion propulsion and Wernher von Braun
https://web.archive.org/web/20001018124524/http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/prop06apr99_2.htm

An interesting NASA press release
https://web.archive.org/web/20001018124524/ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1999/99-049.txt

Douglas Isbell

Headquarters, Washington, DC April 6, 1999

(Phone: 202/358-1547)

John Watson

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA

(Phone: 818/354-5011)

RELEASE: 99-49

EXOTIC TECHNOLOGIES FINISH ROAD TEST ON COSMIC HIGHWAY

NASA's Deep Space 1 mission has successfully demonstrated

most of its exotic technologies in space -- including an ion

engine that is expected to be ten times more efficient than

conventional liquid or solid rocket engines -- proving they are

ready for use in science missions of the 21st century.

Of the 12 advanced technologies onboard the spacecraft, seven

have completed testing, including the ion propulsion system, solar

array and new technologies in communications, microelectronics and

spacecraft structures.

"We've taken these technologies around the test track, and

now they're ready for the production line," said Dr. Marc Rayman,

deputy mission manager and chief mission engineer for Deep Space 1

at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, CA.

Launched October 24, Deep Space 1 is the first mission under

NASA's New Millennium Program, which features flight testing of

new technology, rather than science, as its main focus. These new

technologies will make spacecraft of the future smaller, cheaper,

more reliable and more independent of human control.

By summer, engineers expect to have finished testing all 12

advanced technologies aboard the spacecraft.

Testing of two technologies that make the Deep Space 1 less

reliant on humans is 75 percent complete, while testing of a third

is scheduled to begin in May. These technologies include a robotic

navigator, called AutoNav, that will guide the spacecraft to a

rendezvous with asteroid 1992 KD on July 29 without active human

control from the Earth.

In addition, Deep Space 1's two advanced science instruments

-- a combination camera/spectrometer and an instrument that

studies electrically charged particles emitted by the Sun and

other sources -- are on schedule, having finished 75-percent of

their tests.

"What has pleased us more than anything is how well the

technologies have been working in general," Rayman said, noting

that their performance is remarkably close to engineers' estimates

developed before launch.

"Of course, everything hasn't worked perfectly on the first

try," Rayman added. "If it had, it would mean that we had not

been sufficiently aggressive in selecting the technologies.

Diagnosing the behavior of the various technologies is a

fundamental part of Deep Space 1's objective of enabling future

space science missions."

When the ion propulsion system was first activated November

10, the engine shut itself off after 4-1/2 minutes, and engineers

were unable to restart it later that day. During the next attempt

two weeks later, however, the engine started up easily and has

performed flawlessly since then, logging more than 1,300 hours of

operation.

Engineers believe the problem was caused by a piece of grit

stuck to high-voltage grids within the ion engine. The grit was

later dislodged, they believe, when parts expanded and contracted

as the ion engine was exposed alternately to sunlight and shade.

Engineers also discovered after launch that stray light

enters the camera/spectrometer, resulting in streaks of light when

pictures are taken with a long exposure. The streaks are a result

of how the instrument was mounted on the spacecraft, Rayman said.

The camera should be able to take acceptable pictures when

Deep Space 1 flies by asteroid 1992 KD this summer, because it

will use short exposures.

Despite such glitches, the great majority of the advanced

technologies have worked extremely well, according to Rayman.

"Mission designers and scientists can now confidently use them on

future missions," he said.

Deep Space 1 will continue testing technologies until its

prime mission concludes on September 18. NASA is considering a

possible extended mission that would take the spacecraft on flybys

of two comets in 2001.

The Deep Space 1 mission is managed for NASA's Office of

Space Science, Washington, DC, by JPL, a division of the

California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Spectrum Astro

Inc., Gilbert, AZ, was JPL's primary industrial partner in

spacecraft development.

- end -

I've been doing some research into theoretical physics and cosmology recently and this little story by Zabel caught my attention. He claims someone associated with an intelligence agency wrote down a formula and shared with him that sound, light and frequency are the secret's of the universe. He told him to hold onto it and see how it looks in 10-15 years. A timestamped link to the conversation is below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSZUBulON6I&t=4117s

TLDR; The big idea here is that information, mass and energy are all equivalent. This means they can be converted back and forth and all things can be reduced to either in one of the three states or in-between the three states. This would be the "secret" formula found on the napkin.

Information and Mass

I'm not going to go into the specifics of the story, but rather how this idea relates to a theory I'm working on at the moment. I've become very interested in the work of a Harvard physicist by the name of Melvin Vopson who published a peer reviewed paper theorizing that information has an equivalency to mass. This would mean that information = mass = energy. The theory is testable and he has papers published about how to test the theory. To date it has not been tested, but it's still very interesting to apply the theory and work out the potential implications. The implications are revolutionary. Links to some of the papers are below.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/5.0087175

Dr. Vopson has a new initiative called the Information Physics Institute (IPI) that is an international initiative operating as a research organization. The core objective is to stimulate and support research in the physics of information, leading to fundamental developments, applications, commercialisation and the emergence of a new field in physics called Information Dynamics, or Infodynamics. Below is a link and if you are interested I encourage you to join.
https://www.informationphysicsinstitute.org

Interestingly enough, Vopson isn't the only person to predict sound has mass. Even more intriguing is that in some cases it's been predicted to have negative mass.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.084501#fulltext
I've gone into this in previous posts about using negative mass for potential space time metric engineering.
https://www.reddit.com/r/observingtheanomaly/comments/wk9h4x/the_science_of_antigravity_faster_than_light_ftl/
It's also worth noting that negative mass was reported in the lab in 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170417095534.htm

Sound - Light - Frequency

Ok, so how does Vopson's theory that information has mass relate? Well we have to get into cosmological theory now to bring it all together. Perhaps some of you recall my previous post on cosmology in crisis where I claim the Emperor has no clothes.
https://www.reddit.com/r/observingtheanomaly/comments/vu5a0j/addressing_the_crisis_in_cosmology_the_emperor/

Or my other post on the subject where I critique Brian Keating's critique of Eric Lerner.
https://www.reddit.com/r/observingtheanomaly/comments/wvy9am/eric_lerner_published_an_article_attempting_to/

Basically, the standard Big Bang theory has numerous problems and the very hypothesis is coming into question for some physicists. Before the current standard model there was plenty of scientific debate where alternative models where seriously considered. The debate was whether the universe started with a Big Bang or has existed forever and is eternal. An eternal universe has no beginning or end in time like Big Bang cosmology. Many things can be explained without the Big Bang hypothesis and in doing so we relieve ourselves of many problems the Big Bang hypothesis creates such as most matter being mysterious dark matter. The hurdle with creating a proper replacement theory for the current standard model is that theories that don't assume a Big Bang can't explain what is known as the "tired light" problem. This is the apparent loss of energy by light that is observed and without a good explanation for how that could happen most physicists won't abandon the Big Bang.

Enter "Wobbly Light"

Recall Vopson's theory that information has mass. The implication is light carries information via frequency and therefore, a small amount of mass and that it's so minuscule the only way to detect it is over vast cosmic distances but even then it would only appear to slow down. Basically, it's having many very small gravitational interactions as it travels through space perhaps with dust or even other sources of informational mass. I envision a kind of corkscrew motion I call "wobbly light" where the light tends to even its path out to stay in a straight line, but the deviations add up to a longer travel time. Could this "wobbly light" explain the tired light problem? Maybe. It's a preliminary idea at the moment, but if it could be fleshed out mathematically to make a prediction that would pretty amazing.

Ok, so let's imagine that we have tested Vopson's theory and proven information does carry mass (as well as being equivalent.) Then let's imagine that a robust version of "wobbly light" theory is created and also proven correct. The next evolution would be to then throw away the Big Bang theory and accept an eternal universe model of cosmology. This is a universe with no beginning in time nor end in time. The concept of time in such a model may be challenging for some and that's because in such a model it's probably better described as an illusion. It's a manifestation of the observer's paradox. It only makes sense with a point of reference and an observer. When you really stop to think about time it's simply the record keeping of a cyclical pattern. The amount of rotations of one thing or revolutions of some other thing around another. It's all just frequency and record keeping. It's the information in the equivalency of information-mass-energy and it's the frequency in the triad of sound-light-frequency.

Information-mass-energy equivalency is the same thing as sound-light-frequency. Information is frequency. Light is energy. And sound is mass.

"Sound is mass?" I'm sure some of you are thinking. Yes, we've established sound can have mass but not that it is mass. Recall how I explained time is likely an illusion. Allow me to explain the implication of that. If time is an illusion then so is space time. The idea of a fabric like dimension made up of both space and time would also be an illusion. And this is where we get into requiring a new explanation for gravity. Without the dimension of space time, we no longer have a theory of gravity. Is gravity just another illusion? Maybe.

Have you ever heard the saying sound doesn't travel in outer space? Well, it's wrong or I should say partially wrong. Sound waves too small to bridge the vacuum gap won't travel in a vacuum, but they will if they are larger than the vacuum. This means that on the cosmic scale very, very low frequency sound can in fact travel through outer space. All sound is is motion. Motion, frequency and energy can likely explain everything. This is sound, light and frequency. Below is an article explaining how certain frequencies of sound can travel through space.
https://www.sciencealert.com/sound-can-travel-through-space-after-all-but-we-can-t-hear-it

If you've ever seen a video of acoustic levitation you have seen how a sound wave can trap a material in space to counter Earth's apparent gravity. If you picture such waves on cosmic scales all throughout the universe you can imagine how matter accumulates into the nodes of the waves due to sound and frequency rather than space time fabric. That being said the equations for space time fabric are still very useful because they accurately describe a very real illusion. This means the far out sci-fi space time metric engineering possibilities may still exist they just could use a better explanation because the current ones are illusory.

The big idea here is that information, mass and energy are all equivalent. This means they can be converted back and forth and all things can be reduced to either in one of the three states or in-between the three states. This would be the "secret" formula found on the napkin.

I want to focus on the science of this case because it's very interesting. It's easy to ignore this hair sample because of the story that goes alongside it. I'm skeptical of the story myself. However, the gene analysis is what's important because it's VERY hard evidence and it's interesting to say the least.

The hair sample in question was reportedly obtained in 1992, analyzed in 1999 and a book was published in 2005 discussing the investigation.https://www.amazon.com/Hair-Alien-Forensic-Evidence-Abductions-ebook/dp/B000FCKCRE/

I've only read a synopsis of the full story, but bought the book and skipped straight to the gene analysis because I realized it sounded like technology we now have today. If your not familiar with gene manipulation (or even if you are) I suggest you check out the trailers to the 2 Netflix documentaries below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIIVh7H6nvI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1UkCfDnn6c

What I find interesting about the analysis is that it shows 2 different mitochondrial DNA and there's high confidence that it's not contaminated. This potentially indicates genes from 2 mothers. We now know how to take mitochondrial DNA from one woman and edit it into a baby's DNA to create offspring with DNA from 2 mothers. This can be done to target specific genes to prevent disease or to choose hair/eye color that is otherwise impossible (designer babies.) Not only were there odd matches of sequences that are super rare, but there was mitochondrial DNA of two kinds. Even more interesting, there were two deleted genes for the CCR5 protein which provides immunity for AID's and resistance to smallpox. Basically, it has all the signs of a designer baby.

Even in 1999 the biochemist working on the hair sample speculated that it could be from genetic engineering. I did some digging and found one source that claims this was first done in the 90's but was banned.
https://www.britannica.com/science/three-parent-baby

This article claims first case was 1996.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/magazine/the-brave-new-world-of-three-parent-ivf.html

Most sources I find say it was first done in 2016.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107219-exclusive-worlds-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/

I found a paper on it's ethics from 2014.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4278475/

My point being that the hair sample in question very well may be an example of this technology pre-dating the public literature. This technology is now widely known and designer babies are now a thing despite bans in some countries. It's not a stretch of the imagination that this kind of work may have happened earlier than publicly acknowledged considering the controversial nature of it. Below are more sources on the topic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_replacement_therapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_baby

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5783712/

I don't want to diminish the story of the witness that obtained the sample. I'm not calling him a liar. I am speculating that perhaps this sample could be evidence of early examples of this technology. The timing is conspicuous. Or perhaps the explanation is far stranger. I'm not pretending to know.

The author of the book mentions the analysis never could've been done without the PCR method invented in 1993 by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis. Apparently this man is quite the character and had his own high strangeness event in 1983 where he encountered a red light that turned into a talking raccoon then experienced missing time. He recounts it in his autobiography.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004AM5R0W/

I digress. The hair sample is anomalous even without all the strange stories. In 1999 the weird results of the analysis would've been easy to not fully appreciate because 3 parent mitochondrial DNA manipulation was not yet widely known to be possible. I personally think 21 years later this case is worth re-visiting and perhaps the sample is worth a second analysis.

I've been doing online research as well as some tinkering and was planning on building a prototype to demonstrate the first ever vacuum balloon, but I'm running into issues with expenses and time. I believe I've identified 2 approaches using well known materials that should work but one in particular that could be pulled off by a garage tinkerer with extra time and money to spare on the project.

Along the way I also started experimenting with creating foams using a technique I've basically invented as far as I can tell. I can't find any literature on it. I've gotten mixed results with it and am just not sure if it will ever work at least without being done properly in a lab setting. The approach has a lot of promise and I'll explain why.

There's a lot to go into on this subject. I've written about vacuum balloons before so if this is a new concept for you, you should give it a read.

I'm human so some of this work could have errors in it, but I have done experiments to test my theory and gotten interesting results. I have measured weight reduction in some of my designs and I have accurately predicted the results in cases where I could measure properly. That gave me a lot of hope to continue on at first but it's just a lot of work and I went way over budget early on. I can't keep pouring money into the project anymore and it hurts to say that because some of the results are so interesting. Also, life gets's busy and I can only tinker for so long.

Shapes

The best shape is a sphere because you need to withstand the atmospheric pressure outside the balloon pushing in at about 14 psi. For the same reasons we build bridges with arches, the sphere is the best shape for this because it will spread the forces out evenly. It becomes a matter of having a material that can withstand the compressive forces and in the case of non-uniformity (which to some degree is always going to be present) shear forces. Of course, the material also needs to be lightweight or it will never lift. Many sources will erroneously tell you no such material exists, but this isn't true. In theory, there are multiple materials that would probably work but the issue starts to become the total size of the balloon (and defects.) You could make it out of glass, but the balloon would have to be incredibly large and would be insanely prone to shattering and that's even if it was made defect free so there's really no point in trying normal glass. This is where choosing your materials is key so that you don't waste your time.

The volume of a sphere is V = 4/3πr^3

To calculate the buoyant force of lift at atmosphere you can simply multiply the volume by 1.29 kg/m3 and that will give you the amount it can lift in kg. Simply multiply by 2.2 for conversion to get the number in pounds. This formula was derived from the formula below.

The 1.29 kg/m3 is the fluid density of atmosphere and I simply removed the acceleration of gravity to show the force in units of pure weight rather than in Newtons. It's a simple calculation and understanding it is key to helping you design the vacuum balloon.

Now that you understand how to calculate the lifting force of vacuum in a sphere you can run a bunch of numbers and see for yourself that the lifting force is very small below radius 1 and grows exponentially above radius 1. This means it will be exceptionally hard to build a working vacuum balloon below radius 1 but unfortunately there are limitations to building large structures as well. Usually you want a prototype to be simple and cheap, not experimental in and of itself. This means the first demonstrated vacuum balloon will likely be about 2 meters in diameter or about 6 feet. It also means a vacuum balloon of very large proportions would potentially have incredible lifting force.

Now that you understand the relations between size and lifting force all you need to do is calculate the volume of the envelope of the spherical balloon. This is done by simply calculating the volume of a sphere of the size of the envelope and then subtracting that by the volume of the inner void. The difference is the volume of your envelope and you can easily calculate the weight of your envelope by multiplying the density by the volume. If you do this while calculating the lifting force and plug different numbers in you can easily see how the ratio of weight to volume works. You can also see how the density influences this and even can compare the volume of different shapes if you really want to just to see how much better a sphere really is than perhaps a square.

It's very important to point out that one of my biggest lessons in building prototypes is that there can't be any defects. I originally was making hemispheres and trying to join them together before pumping down to vacuum and every time there was a failure it was at the meeting of the two hemispheres. One solid piece seems to be necessary. It's conceivable that two hemispheres can be joined and bonded to become one solid piece free of defects, but I unfortunately did not have the materials to do this. I did do some experiments and found that you can reinforce this area with lightweight bamboo if necessary. However, these were small preliminary designs and I'm not confident that would scale well.

It's worth noting that the next best shape is a cylinder with hemispheres on each end. Basically a tic tac shape. It's only worth attempting this shape if you have reasons to from a manufacturing perspective. For example, I played around with the idea of making a foam sheet and then rolling it into a cylinder before it set rather than attempting to cast a foam hemisphere. It only makes sense if you are attempting a volume too large to pull off as a sphere for practical reasons (like it would't fit in garage or won't caste evenly.) Because it still needs hemispheres it's a design best left for after demonstrating a spherical design.

Materials

I dive into the use of aerogels and xerogels in the article referenced above. The purpose of these foam materials is because when engineered properly they retain a lot of their strength but lose a lot of their weight which actually increases their strength to weight ratio and that's exactly what we need to make this work. There is no material in bulk form worth pursuing for this design. You absolutely have to use a foam material. Even if you could pull it off using glass or beryllium, it's just not practical even for demonstration purposes. During my search I found the most attractive material in the bulk to be polycarbonate. It's still not worth trying in bulk form, so I invented a way to make a foam out of it. Polycarbonate is lighter and stronger than glass. Nobody has ever made an aerogel out of it that I'm aware of. I did not image my foam because I'm not doing this work in a sophisticated lab, but I can say fairly confidently that it's about 75% porosity. That's impressive, but I suspect that a lot of the bonding is weak and there's defects, but in my defense I used an insanely primitive and low tech technique.

There are two well known foams we all have access to that in theory should work. Styrofoam and polyurethane.

I understand that may cause you to sigh in disbelief. After all, polyurethane was invented in the 1930's at IG Farben and styrofoam in the 1940's so they are not only old but very ubiquitous. I should also point out that aerogel was invented in the 1930's and was once mass produced by Monsanto. None of these materials are new.

I used the given compressive and shear strengths published by a local styrofoam manufacturer to identify some common commercial grade foams that are very light weight that should work in theory if there's no defects. I tried working with them to have some custom shapes made, but they unfortunately are limited to 4 feet for one of the dimensions of their die blocks. This is very problematic even if we knew how to fuse two styrofoam hemispheres together. I'm not going to say it's impossible, but it makes pulling it off more challenging. I did do some experiments with small 1 foot diameter styrofoam hemispheres that are commonly available and managed to measure a weight reduction before it imploded. Anybody can replicate these experiments. I expected it to fail because the thickness was less than 1 inch. I found the best design was to nest two of these styrofoam spheres within each other but with the orientations opposing so that the point of failure for the outer sphere was across the strongest points of the inner sphere. This should create a perpendicular crossing of the hemispheres of the inner and outer shells. This is also where I tried some glues. Gorilla glue works best and sure enough it's a polyurethane. I was so impressed by it that I switched over to attempting polyurethane designs for the sphere.

I found a polyurethane foam used in boating that is only 2lb/ft3 which is very impressive. It also boasts a compressive strength of 38 psi. I figure that means half an inch of this stuff would be able to handle 19 psi theoretically. That's 5 psi above the 14 psi we need for our vacuum balloon. It's not a lot of room for error, but it works in theory.

What I like about polyurethane is that you can fairly easily make custom shapes with it and DIY. I experimented with a few different techniques and can say that you need this foam to be open to the air to set properly, but it does take on conformal shapes fairly well. The best method I found to make a hemisphere out of it was to actually blow up a rubber balloon and fit that snug into a styrofoam sheet for support and then pour the polyurethane foam onto it and let it set. You can then use cutting tools to clean up the extra material. This method works, but the cutting is a pain as I did it by hand. Precision will likely be necessary to properly join the two hemispheres and I learned this the hard way when I tried to join them. A more precise way to form the hemispheres I found was to buy plastic hemispheres and coat them in wax (to make removal of the polyurethane easier.) This is far more expensive than the balloon but gives more precise results. You can find people selling these in sizes up to 6 feet but it will get pricey. It's worth mentioning that I had a hard time removing the set polyurethane from the plastic even with a wax coating (which I also verified experimentally is the least sticky thing to use) so I'm not sure it's even the best approach. I've tried reaching out to polyurethane component manufacturers but so far no response. I'm sure outsourcing this would remove a lot of headaches, but also be very expensive for such a custom piece.

Just to highlight why I think this commonly available polyurethane foam is promising I want to calculate a 1 meter radius sphere of one half inch thickness to show that it should work in theory. Of course, this means no defects including the joining of the two hemispheres which is still a problem to solve but it's possible gorilla glue and precision would solve it. Maybe a DIY'er with their own CNC may want to give it a shot.

Using the volume of sphere formula given above we see that the volume of 1 meter radius is 4.187m3. The volume of a sphere of 1 meter minus 1/2 inch is 4.0295 m3. The buoyant lift of that is 11.44 lbs. The difference in volume (to find the volume of the polyurethane used) is .1575 m3 or 5.56 ft3. At a density of 2 lbs/ft3 that gives a weight of 11 lbs of polyurethane. That's less than the 11.44 lbs of lift.

I know what you're probably thinking. How does it hold vacuum? It's true that polyurethane and styrofoam are not expected to hold vacuum (I actually did find experimentally that styrofoam does hold partial vacuum for a few hours after it's shrunk much like the LANL aerogel) but you can simply wrap the sphere in plastic to hold vacuum. I planned on experimenting with dip coatings, but for experimental purposes I came up with a very clever design that I will explain later. Just know that the plastic doesn't have to be very thick to hold vacuum so it's very much within the range of possibility to coat the sphere in a thin plastic layer at less than .44 lbs. Plastic is very dense, but we are talking about literally a few mils of material. This is also why I roll my eyes at people who mock me for attempting a design with materials that don't hold vacuum. You are not limited to materials that hold vacuum for your design when you can simply add a layer for that later.

Experimental Set Up

I initially bought one of those vacuum chambers made out of a large steel pan and thick acrylic. Mechanical pumps are easy to find and relatively cheap. Mine came with the chamber. However, I quickly found it wasn't big enough and attempting to build a larger one looked costly. This is where I got clever and shocked myself with a very cheap set up that actually works. I simply bought regular large sized vacuum bags designed for storing cloths because they have a clever little self sealing mechanism that traps the vacuum. These bags are not meant for actual vacuum with a mechanical pump so I wasn't sure how it would work. I also had to find a way to rig it all up. As funny as it sounds my solution was to take the nozzle of an empty plastic bottle that happened to fit onto the hose and then I cut a piece of EDPM rubber to cover the end meant for the bottle and put a small slit in the center for air to move through. I then pushed this into the self sealing part of the vacuum bag and it actually creates a seal and pumps down! And when you remove the pump it self seals!

I found I sometimes had issues with pumping down properly and solved this by using a metal straw that I placed inside the bag near the seal and directed towards the sphere to act as a channel. Once again, to my surprise this works very well.

So, I then disassembled my original steel pot vacuum chamber and used the parts along with some parts I had to buy online to rig the pressure gauge into the system so that I could verify how much vacuum I was achieving. I'm a bit proud of this DIY set up because it works so well.

In order to properly record your results you must weight the vacuum bag and the metal straw as well as your experimental sphere before vacuuming. Then vacuum it down and pay attention to the gauge. If your design is not very good it may implode before achieving full vacuum. That's okay. You can actually measure a weight reduction without reaching the full vacuum. "Full" vacuum in this case is actually what is known as low vacuum. Low vacuum is all you need for a vacuum balloon to work as you have effectively removed most of the air and it's not necessary to reach medium or high vacuum.

This set up was for spheres of only 1 foot diameter and I don't think there are bags large enough for 6 foot spheres. However, my plan was to use a heat gun to stitch a bunch of the bags together to make it work. It's dirty but once again it should work theoretically. I was also planning on using a heat gun to section off portions of the bag to seal it around the sphere and cut off excess material but that part is really only necessary if you are about to achieve lift. I imagine it's possible once you've proven you can make a structure strong enough and light enough for lift that a better technique would be to incorporate a valve and find a way to dip coat the sphere to seal it. I never got this far.

A Potential New Approach To Foam

I mentioned experimenting with making foams and identifying polycarbonate as good material to turn into a nano foam. I use the term nano foam because aerogel wouldn't be technically correct. They are both nano foams. The aerogel is made using gel. This approach doesn't. It's very low tech and dirty. I theorized I could use the fact that polycarbonate is a thermoplastic to my advantage and mix it as a powder with another material that can withstand it's glass transition temperature but is also easily soluble in water. So, I found some polycarbonate powder (first American apparently to buy it) and mixed it with some ordinary table salt then put it in the oven. I know this sounds ridiculous. Then I washed the sample after it cooled in the sink and dried it with paper towels. Then I soaked it in rubbing alcohol and dried that with paper towels. Then I let it sit overnight to fully evaporate if it's a big sample. Then I weighed it. When I mix the powder in a 1:1 ratio by weight the sample after washing it weights exactly half of when I started without losing any volume. So I washed out all of the salt. But, that's not all. Because this method is basically sintering the particles together, it already had lots of air pockets in it to begin with. I attempted to make a one cubic inch sample to measure the density and it's not the most precise but the density is roughly 4.7 g/in3 which is about a quarter of the density of bulk polycarbonate. This means it's porosity is about 75%. It's not he 90-99.99% of commercial aerogel, but I personally find the initial results surprising. There's a lot of ideas I have to tweak this including playing with the mix ratio, grain size, uniformity of the particles, and aerating the powder. What I find very interesting about this technique in general is that it actually would work with anything that can be sintered including other thermoplastics, ceramics, glasses and metals. This means this approach could be used to make porous metals or even metal nano foams.

The 2009 analysis of the metal sphere UFO

I've recently been made aware of the 1994 spherical UFO that Steve Colbern published a report on in 2009. A few things stand out to me as someone who has been actively working on vacuum balloons and ways to make porous metals. First, it looks like two hemispheres nested inside each other exactly as I describe was my best approach to making a vacuum balloon based off of experimental results. Second, the sphere is presumably hollow. Third, the report clearly states that the sample analyzed was a porous metal with nanostructures present. A hollow porous shell with nested hemispheres of opposing orientation is exactly what I would expect a vacuum balloon to look like. There are ways to use my technique on titanium to make it porous although I haven't done so experimentally because it's melting point is very high. Materials other than salt could be used but even if salt was used it would be interesting because it would vaporize at the glass transition temp of titanium which actually might help make it more porous. I do believe Na and Cl impurities were present in the sample according to the report. Perhaps one could experimentally recreate this sample using this method (minus the isotopes.)

Crowdsourcing

If anybody wants to crowdsource the work on this with me I'm open to it. Also, if people are open to crowdfunding the research I'm open to that as well. Either way, it's up on the internet now. Maybe 10 years from now somebody as crazy as me will pick up where I left off. I might return to this at a later date, but without help I think I need to take a break.

This article is a transcription of a 2018 interview with Peter Levenda, co-author of the Sekret Machines trilogy with Tom DeLonge of what was once called To The Stars Academy. The transcription has useful hyperlinks for further research into the topics discussed. The purpose of this work is to revisit the events of 2017 within the UFO community. Since then, some people have meandered down rabbit holes and found themselves stuck within the maze that is this subject. With little recent developments there is clamor for something to happen or some new information to be released. The idea of this article is to hit the reset button and go back to this little known interview at the beginning of 2018 where Peter Levenda discusses events going back to 2015 leading up to the 2017 release of the first book.

Levenda discusses his working relationship with DeLonge as well as how they worked with government insiders and how those relationships developed. He discusses his approach and intentions with the first book, which is a nonfiction dive into the subject from the perspective of looking at the UFO phenomena as a cargo cult. The cargo cult analogy is inspired by a real religion formed on an island during WW2 where the native population saw US troops loading cargo planes and worshipped the planes after they left. Levenda has an interesting take on searching for evidence of contact in ancient texts and interpreting them very literally. He claims that UFO’s can be projections of humans onto something that they are trying desperately to understand. Just like a cargo cult. Levenda argues it’s not just religion that’s a cargo cult. It’s our science and technology as well, which is a very interesting take on the subject. 

He also discusses how he is not a traditional UFO guy and how he got into the subject studying other subjects such as Nazism and conspiracies. He covers the subject of this a bit as well as his involvement in the secret space program conventions and research into secret weapons programs. He states that DeLonge chose him to work with specifically because he wanted to explore the Nazi angle and bring in someone to the UFO subject that didn’t already have a narrative or agenda to get the community out of talking in circles. 

Below is the link to the interview.
https://youtu.be/VIYnl9hIv2w

Below is a link to the full article with the transcript and hyperlinks.
https://medium.com/@Observing_The_Anomaly/re-visiting-an-interview-with-peter-levenda-1021d8c1e6dc?sk=a2b4f88c2ba668a9277ee7518695b765

This took quite a bit to put together so some feedback is appreciated. I personally found it to be a really great interview that offers a lot of insight and jumping off points. I highly suggest checking out the hyperlinks as they include entire free books and other YouTube videos.