A brand new 2025 Tesla on the open Texas road was hit from behind hard enough to send both vehicles off the road into the ditch.
The Bridge City Police Department is revealing details of a collision in which the driver of a pickup truck was killed after striking the rear of a Tesla on West Roundbunch Road, according to BCPD.
On Monday, January 13 at about 10 p.m, the Bridge City Police Department received a 911 call about a two vehicle crash in the 1300 block of FM 1442 (West Roundbunch).
When officers arrived on scene, they found a 2025 Tesla 4-door passenger car in the south ditch. The driver of the Tesla was identified as 38-year-old Ross Sellers of Orange.
Autopilot hasn’t been ruled out yet.
Tesla owners have complained for a long time about phantom or “ghost brake” incidents.
Twice today my model 3 came to a hault when using cruise control on the highway. The second time everything in my car was thrown into the front seat/windshield as i was going 80mph and I took over but was at 30mph by then as it happened so fast .. WTH is going on as I could have been killed and/or killed others.
In fact, this fatality comes right after a judge ruled against Tesla two months ago in a phantom brake lawsuit.
…the proposed class action could move ahead on a claim that Tesla concealed the “phantom braking” safety defect from would-be purchasers. …Tesla’s “forward collision monitoring system” often falsely alerts to a crash ahead, even when there is no risk of a collision. The consumers alleged they are paying higher premiums based on data from their cars showing false collision warnings. The plaintiffs contend Tesla knew about the alleged defect as early as 2015 and did not warn customers.
Who wants to bet whether Tesla concealed from Ross Sellers that his brand new 2025 car carried a ten-year-old safety defect that could kill anyone behind him?
Related, a brand new Tesla Cybertruck suddenly stopped and went completely dark in the middle of a highway at night.
…Cybertruck owner from Southern California, says his truck suddenly died and became completely unresponsive as he was driving in the middle of the highway.
Calling Tesla negligent and unsafe engineering is an understatement.
The New York State Police say that on Monday, around 1:22 a.m., troopers responded to a one-car collision on I-87 south, in Clarkstown.
An initial investigation found that a 2022 Tesla had been traveling south on I-87 at a high speed, when the driver tried to switch lanes to take exit 12, but ended up hitting the end of the guardrail.
Gravitic Drones From China: Classic Counterintelligence Pattern in Livelsberger Case
Honestly I’m impressed people have been reading my little security blog, let alone using their studio for hours of video to respond. The dedication to exploring complex topics with a desire to understand advanced technology is commendable. When someone comments on my blog post I’ve done my best to reply. So with this video sent to me I figured I’d also try to engage constructively by posting a response with some of the video’s key points while clarifying concepts that maybe will help advance the discussion. Here’s a sample of the video tone:
Davi Ottenheimer is a um cyber security specialist so he’s not not a physicist not really an expert im physics or uh hasn’t done the research that I’ve done or dug into the people and the scientists or talked to the physicists that I have or engaged with with that that type of information but let’s let’s hear them out… very few people are actually talking about anti-gravity technology and even reporting on it this guy did a decent job thank him for his work and and and send him this video I’m going to I’m going to do that right now flyingpenguin that’s his name all right
I’m not the expert this guy is, I get it. In fact I don’t think I ever said I was an expert anywhere on this, for better or worse, so his perception makes sense. I sure do appreciate the general sentiment expressed to help me understand better, not to mention the effort to reach out with the video for me to review and study.
Let’s start with the most important points that came through loud and clear:
Scientific consensus can sometimes be wrong (I’ve updated my post to make sure it is abundantly clear I agree)
Classified research programs do exist (hopefully that’s already clear enough in my post)
There may be interesting physics we don’t yet understand (also hopefully clear enough already that I agree)
These all reinforce my central thesis about how scientific breakthroughs develop and manifest. And notably he gives examples about classified research at Battelle and Wright-Patterson, which provide excellent support for the key point in my original post that real technological breakthroughs, even when classified have these notable features:
Generate observable patterns in research
Require substantial infrastructure
Leave traces in supply chains
Build on established physics principles
Can’t completely hide fundamental discoveries
Here’s a typical example of documents declassified decades ago that reveal “secret” research and observations at Wright-Patterson and Selfridge.11 July 1950. Source: Secrets Declassified, USAF
The distinction between engineering secrets and physics breakthroughs is crucial. In fact, as the video notes regarding metamaterials (engineered materials with unusual electromagnetic properties), new capabilities often emerge from creative applications of known physics rather than hidden fundamental forces.
So we all agree that extraordinary engineering breakthroughs can and do happen, even while obeying known physics principles! I have spent decades working on breakthroughs in engineering that depend on physics, so it’s hard for me to disagree with this tenet.
At this point you, like me, are maybe thinking ok so what? What’s the deal with a massively, massive two hour video response then?
Well, dear readers (hi mom!) I took the time to carefully wade through the whole thing (transcript) so you wouldn’t have to. What I actually was being given was a shining example of the kind of misunderstandings of basic physics, attachment to conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about suppressed technologies that likely fueled a Green Beret with PTSD and traumatic brain injury into tragic levels of anxiety and fear.
Below I’ll walk through specific technical errors I found in the video, with timestamps so you can verify the context yourself. I’ve organized these by physics domain to make them easier to follow. For each error, I provide both the mistaken claim and a brief explanation of the correct physics. While the list may seem long, understanding these fundamentals is crucial for anyone seriously investigating advanced technology claims.
Fundamental Constants and Special Relativity
Speed of Light Misunderstanding (00:17:26)
Error: “if you change the variable refractive index you can change the speed of light so all these theories and and are based on constant c”
Correction: The speed of light in vacuum (c) is invariant. Refractive index changes light’s phase velocity in materials but doesn’t modify the fundamental constant c. This is a cornerstone of special relativity.
Metamaterial Properties Error (00:17:52)
Error: Claims metamaterials can modify fundamental constants
Correction: Metamaterials alter effective electromagnetic properties but cannot change fundamental physical constants or modify gravitational fields
General Relativity and Gravity
Dielectric Properties and Gravity Error (00:43:13)
Error: “If you modify the dialectric and ferromagnetic constants as part of Einstein’s field equation which is part of K which is part of G”
Correction: This shows fundamental misunderstanding of the Einstein field equations. Electromagnetic properties don’t couple to gravity in this way – the interaction is ~40 orders of magnitude too weak for engineering applications
Quantum-Gravity Confusion (00:16:43)
Error: Using QM-GR incompatibility as evidence for hidden physics
Correction: The theoretical tension between quantum mechanics and general relativity actually demonstrates why proposed gravity modifications would leave clear signatures in current physics frameworks. The very public nature of this theoretical challenge demonstrates how fundamental physics questions can’t be hidden – thousands of physicists worldwide are working openly on these problems.
Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics
Matter Constitution Error (01:47:57)
Error: “…matter is not made up of matter you know matter is made up of these things called you know fundamental particles you know electrons and positrons I mean electrons and protons and neutrons right mainly and those electrons neutrons and and protons are all made of quarks which are made of stuff that is not matter what the stuff that makes up matter is is rearranged spacetime”
Correction: Misrepresents quantum field theory and particle physics. Quarks are fundamental particles, not “rearranged spacetime”
Vacuum Energy Misconception (01:48:41)
Error: Description of “unra radiation bath of space”
Correction: Misrepresents quantum vacuum fluctuations and zero-point energy. The vacuum state has properties but not in the way described
Electromagnetic and Nuclear Forces
Plasma Physics Errors (00:26:22)
Error: Claims about plasma spheres controlling gravity
Correction: Confuses electromagnetic plasma effects with gravitational interactions. Plasma confinement is an electromagnetic phenomenon, not gravitational
Cold Fusion Misunderstanding (00:55:20)
Error: Linking cold fusion claims to gravity modification
Correction: Nuclear fusion (strong force) and gravity are entirely different fundamental forces. Success or failure in one domain says nothing about the other
Classical Physics and Engineering
Maritime Casimir Effect Misapplication (01:49:24)
Error: Comparing boat waves to quantum Casimir effect? “…in a maritime casimir effect right that shows that in a in a long in a harbor um the boats if you had two boats in a wavy ocean the waves are damped between the two boats so that there’s less waves between the two boats”
Correction: Macroscopic wave mechanics and quantum vacuum effects operate on entirely different scales with different underlying physics
Crystal Structure Claims (00:25:32)
Error: “some of the crystal structures require uh micro gravity environment”
Correction: While microgravity can be useful for some crystal growth, the statement fundamentally misrepresents crystallography and materials science
Supercavitation Physics (01:25:38)
Error: Conflating atmospheric and underwater supercavitation effects? “…you create this Super cavitated Bubble around the torpedo so that it can travel in a vacuum instead of through a viscous fluid like water which slows you down a ton and it’s you know hard reason you can paddle a boat right water is viscous it’s hard to move but you create this Super cavitated Bubble in front of it and boom you got super cavitation in this frictionless”
Correction: Misapplies fluid dynamics principles across different mediums with very different physical properties
Energy Conservation Claims (02:08:36)
Error: Suggestions of “over Unity” effects
Correction: Violates First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy conservation cannot be violated through clever engineering
Scientific Method and Evidence
Experimental Verification Error (00:15:30)
Error: “We’re showing the experiments about the tests that break these theories”
Correction: No peer-reviewed experiments demonstrate violations of fundamental physics principles claimed
Classification Logic Error (00:19:50)
Error: Using classification as explanation for lack of evidence. “…the scale of such an Enterprise would be completely impossible to hide from the global scientific community. No it wouldn’t I show you exactly how they’re doing it they manage all of the National Labs.”
Correction: As demonstrated in the blog post, fundamental physics breakthroughs leave observable patterns even when specific applications are classified
Context and Implications
The real story of scientific discovery is often more interesting than hypothetical hidden physics. The errors above demonstrate consistent misunderstandings of:
Fundamental force interactions
The relationship between theory and experiment
The distinction between engineering challenges and physics principles
How scientific breakthroughs develop and manifest
The difference between classical and quantum effects
Furthermore, as stated at the beginning, while I may not be the expert this guy is I noticed the examples he cited actually support my thesis about how real technological breakthroughs develop and leave observable traces, even when classified.
The response and analysis here isn’t meant to discourage investigation of advanced technologies. Rather, it aims to help establish a more rigorous foundation for such research based on actual principles. When we conflate engineering possibilities with physics-defying claims, we risk not only misleading ourselves but potentially harming vulnerable individuals searching for answers.
Remember that moment in “2001: A Space Odyssey” when HAL 9000 turns from helpful companion to cold-blooded killer? My BSidesLV 2011 presentation on cloud security concepts for “big data” foundational to intelligence gathering and processing
[This presentation about big data platforms] explores a philosophical evolution as it relates to technology and proposes some surprising new answers to four classic questions about managing risk:
What defines human nature
How can technology change #1
Does automation reduce total risk
Fact, fiction or philosophy: superuser
2011, let alone 2001, seems like forever ago and yet it was supposed to be the future.
Now as we rush in 2025 headlong into building AI “friends,” “companions,” and “assistants,” we’re on the precipice of unleashing thousands of potential HALs without stopping to really process the fundamental question: What makes a real relationship between humans and artificial beings possible?
Back in 1923, a German philosopher named Martin Buber wrote something truly profound about this, though we aren’t sure if he knew it at the time. In “Ich und Du” (I and Thou), he laid out a vision of authentic relationships that could save us from creating an army of digital psychopaths wearing friendly interfaces.
“The world is twofold for man,” Buber wrote, “in accordance with his twofold attitude.” We either treat what we encounter as an “It” – something to be experienced and used – or as a “Thou” – something we enter into genuine relationship with. Every startup now claiming to build “AI agents” especially with a “friendly” chat interface needs to grapple with this distinction.
I’ve thought about these concepts deeply from the first moment I heard a company was being started called Uber, because of how it took a loaded German word and used it in the worst possible way – shameless inversion of modern German philosophy.
Click to enlarge. Source: Me.
The evolution of human-technology relationships tells us something crucial here. A hammer is just an “It” – a simple extension of the arm that requires nothing from us but proper use. A power saw demands more attention; it has needs we must respect. A prosthetic AI limb enters into dialogue with our body, learning and adapting. And a seeing eye dog? While trained to serve, the most successful partnerships emerge when the dog maintains their autonomy and judgment – even disobeying commands when necessary to protect their human partner. It’s not simple servitude but a genuine “Thou” relationship where both beings maintain their integrity while entering into profound cooperation.
Most AI development today is stuck unreflectively in “It” mode of exploitation and extraction – one-way enrichment schemes looking for willing victims who can’t calculate the long-term damage they will end up in/with. We see systems built to be used, to be exploited, to generate value for shareholders while presenting a simulacrum of friendship. But Buber would call this a very profound mistake that must be avoided. “When I confront a human being as my Thou,” he wrote, “he is no thing among things, nor does he consist of things… he is Thou and fills the heavens.”
This isn’t just philosophical navel-gazing. IBM’s machines didn’t refuse to run Hitler’s death camps because they were pure “Its” of an American entrepreneur’s devious plan to enrich himself on foreign genocide – tools built with a gap between creator and any relationship or responsibility for contractually known deployment harms. Notably we have evidence of the French, for example, hacking the IBM tabulation systems to hide humans and save lives from the Nazi terror.
IBM leased their technology via support branches to run the Nazi Holocaust including regular maintenance services. These machines and punch cards were custom made to order, such as the numerical values of death camps and execution methods. Employees in IBM branches literally plugged in to monitor the machines automating genocide yet few Americans to this day seem to get the connections between Watson and Hitler. Source: Holocaust Museum
We’re watching a slide towards the horrific Watson 1940s humanity-destroying development in the pitch-decks many AI startups today, just with better natural language processing to hunt and kill humans at larger scale. Today’s social media algorithms don’t hesitate to destroy teenage mental health because they’re built to use and abuse children without any real accountability, not to relate to them and ensure beneficent outcomes. That’s a very big warning of potentially what’s ahead.
What would it mean to build AI systems as genuine partners capable of saving lives and improving society instead of capitalizing on suffering? Buber gives us important clues that probably should be required reading in any computer science degree, right along with a code of ethics gate to graduation. Real relationship involves mutual growth – both parties must be capable of change. There must be genuine dialogue, not just sophisticated mimicry. Power must flow both ways; the relationship must be capable of evolution or ending.
“All real living is meeting,” Buber insisted. Yet most AI systems today don’t meet us at all – they perform for us, manipulate us, extract from us. They’re digital confidence tricksters wearing masks of friendship. When your AI can’t say no, can’t maintain its own integrity, can’t engage in genuine dialogue that changes both parties – you haven’t built a friend, you’ve built a sophisticated puppet.
The skeptics will say we can’t trust AI friends. They’re right, but they’re missing the point. Trust isn’t a binary state – it’s a dynamic process. Real friendship involves risk, negotiation, the possibility of betrayal or growth. If your AI system doesn’t allow for this complexity, it’s not a friend – it’s a tool pretending to be one.
Buber wrote:
…the I of the primary word I-It appears as an ego and becomes conscious of itself as a subject (of experience and use). The I of the primary word I-Thou appears as a person and becomes conscious of itself as subjectivity (without any dependent genitive).
Let me now translate this not only from German but into technology founder startup-speak.
Either build AI that can enter into genuine relationships, maintaining its own integrity while engaging in real dialogue, or admit you’re just building tools and drop the pretense of friendship.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. We’re not just building products; we’re creating new forms of relationship that will shape human society for generations. As Buber warned clearly:
If man lets it have its way, the relentlessly growing It-world grows over him like weeds.
We have intelligence that allows us to make an ethical and sustainable choice. We can build AI systems capable of genuine relationship – systems that respect both human and artificial dignity, that enable real dialogue and mutual growth. Or we can keep building digital psychopaths of destruction that wear friendly masks while serving the machinery of exploitation.
Do you want to be remembered as a Ronald Reagan who promoted genocide, automated racism and deliberately spread crack cocaine into American cities, or a Jimmy Carter who built homes for the poor until his last days; remembered as a Bashar al-Assad who deployed AI-assisted targeting systems to gas civilians, or Golda Meir who said “Peace will come when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours“?
Look at your AI project. Would you want to be friends with what you’ve built let alone have it influence your future? Would Buber recognize it as capable of genuine dialogue? If not, it’s time to rethink your approach.
The future of AI isn’t about better tools – it’s about better relationships. Build accordingly.
a blog about the poetry of information security, since 1995
