Search results

not going to explain your own electron drive concept to you

Counterexample: maglev train Also acts as example for "propellent-less propulsion drive" that can "counteract Earth's gravity" (Buhler's claim in the OP).

@Ravi explained it.

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aroBnpx6t80 Electrostatic levitation using a single plate and a wood spoon.

Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bOnjlyZf6LE

Source: https://imgur.com/gallery/w5Weibb locally sourced witchcraft

No. The original point (my point) was that the need for Kona Blue cannot be established based on "the enemy wants this". If you are trying to make points about other programs, you're in the wrong thread. The reasoning in the Kona Blue proposal that I object to is "if these woo techniques were...

@Tezcatlipoca Do you agree with this: We need this project because our adversaries will want to spy on it.

AARO is not bunk. NIEMR is not bunk (put a hamster in your microwave and you can see the biological effects). The fact that the Soviets did parapsychology research or that Russia might be spying on our parapsychology research does not change the fact that it's not a threat. However, that is...

There's a logical disconnect between us here, and I can't figure out where. There is nothing in Koba Blue that is worth collecting. Reminder: Remote vision, remote communication, and de/re-materialization techniques to observe, communicate, retrieve data, and transfer matter across dimensional...

Some people just want to watch the world burn.

First, the proposal is worded such that the (impossible) paranormal methods are collection priorities, not the projects researching them. And second, it's hard to imagine that e.g. Puthoff working with mediums had broad access to anything interesting (why?).

Speculation. The Condon Committee was as much of a "program" (it really was a study) as the Robertson Panel was, which Mellon has no beef with in this table of contents. So that can't be it. Edit: I do not know if Durant's activity was set up as a program or not. Do you? Since you seem to...

Especially since we don't know who proposed Kona Blue.

I don't even understand these two. The Robertson panel issued a final report, and then Durant wrote another report about the work of the Robertson panel. There is no "Durant Project", so what is Mellon's point here? Does he think AARO needed to ignore this report? Similarly, there is no...

Yep. And Mellon picks whichever option contradicts AARO: on GRUDGE, it's pretty clear that AARO's start date is the funding start, while Ruppelt worked months before to set it up. For Blue Book's end date: The last publicly acknowledged day of Blue Book operations was December 17, 1969. However...

Mellon: Ruppelt calls it "project bear" in his book, but implies that it's not the real name. Mellon appears to be correct. Mellon: AARO: I'm not going to chase down the other dates.

Mellon: The report on unidentified flying objects by Ruppelt, Edward J https://archive.org/details/reportonunidenti00rupp Not only does Mellon not give sources for his claims, he also fails at looking up the sources that the AARO report cites.

Generally, I don't expect them to report on things they did not investigate. The question is, should they have investigated Doty? How?

Thank you, I've corrected myself.