Category Archives: Energy

Tic Tac Tech: Why Some Drone Paths Are More Likely Than Gravitic Propulsion

There seems to be endless debate about exotic propulsion in the Livelsberger case, but let’s not lose focus on what’s most probable: the 2004 Tic Tac incidents exposed advanced electromagnetic and plasma technology rather than gravity manipulation.

Consider that Orde Wingate didn’t break the laws of warfare when his men mysteriously appeared suddenly deep in enemy territory, but he certainly leveraged disinformation and propaganda to throw off observers. He was always challenging what was actually possible, as well as what people perceived.

Wingate’s fleet of Waco “Hadrian” Gliders in 1944 were deployed to do the “impossible” in Operation Thursday.

We’re now talking modern astrophysics here instead of early “long lines” flight tech of WWII, but operators always look at technology the same – an interesting puzzle that can be solved in novel ways.

To start, timing can be a telling thread to pull. The 2004 observations of unidentified flying craft were quickly followed by Fontana’s 2005 paper discussing both gravitational and electromagnetic approaches. That seems notable, yet rarely noted. In fact, electromagnetic technology showed consistent progression in the decades since, while gravitic proposalsn remained purely theoretical. Then came clear advancement in plasma physics, electromagnetic field generation, and materials science, while again gravitational manipulation showed no similar development chain.

Following that thread there were three capabilities in reports that stood out as possible breakthroughs: instant acceleration, silent supersonic travel, and seamless air-to-water transition. The crucial question now should be which technical approaches require the least impossible leap from existing engineering. Not theoretical; actual engineering.

Let’s look at instant acceleration without visible exhaust, not unlike the noise from Tesla about a car that would go 0-60 in one second. A gravitic drive would require energy densities comparable to astronomical objects, without incremental steps or partial success possible. Plasma field technology however offers a visible development path: from basic electromagnetic experiments to increasingly sophisticated field manipulation. Anyone who’s done smooth and fast night maritime operations knows how energy moves through water. The plasma field manipulation follows similar principles of working with the medium, not trying to defy it.

Even more clear in this direction is an absence of sonic booms. Gravitational manipulation would require warping space-time itself, as an all-or-nothing proposition requiring physics we have no known skill with. Electromagnetic shockwave control, however? We trace the rising development from theoretical papers through wind tunnel tests to programs like the very real X-59. Each step clearly built on proven technology, like how SDV operations evolved from basic underwater movements to sophisticated multi-domain capability.

The air-to-water transition might be the most revealing of all, which I have to say as “flyingpenguin”. A gravitic drive would need to manipulate fundamental forces. The required energy and infrastructure would be impossible to hide. But advanced materials and electromagnetic field manipulation? That’s like the difference between trying to eliminate waterline to minimize friction versus learning to work with it the way special operations have refined sea-land-air insertion techniques over decades.

The real distinction thus isn’t found yet in any single surprise technology breaking out. Rather we have a wide range of observable complementary engineering and development paths:

  • Incremental advances in plasma physics
  • Growing electromagnetic field control capabilities
  • Progressive materials science breakthroughs
  • Evolving power storage and management systems
  • Step-by-step sensor and control improvements

This list of improbable gains by 2004 had established clear development trajectories. Each advance built on previous work, used existing infrastructure, and required expertise we could actually develop. Like going back to Wingate’s brilliant innovations, they pushed the boundaries of what was possible without requiring impossible leaps.

The infrastructure needed for electromagnetic/plasma technology already exists and has been expanding with known specialized manufacturing, high-energy physics labs, and materials science facilities. We can trace the growth through public research, corporate investment, and observable testing programs.

In contrast, there are no meaningful gravity manipulation facilities, even though we expect them to be impossible to hide because of energy concentrations visible from space. Electromagnetic field manipulation works at scales we can actually achieve. Current research pushes these boundaries incrementally, like how modern maritime operations are developing sophisticated trans-medium capabilities. But gravity manipulation? The energy required literally would be astronomical.

This is why focusing on electromagnetic and plasma technology is plausible versus gravitational speculation. Not because of being impressive, given controlling gravity would certainly be revolutionary. But because we trace evolution and incremental skill mastery as reliable rather than expect operators to make revolutionary leaps only to witness disaster.

Everyone “knew” you couldn’t sustain operations deep behind enemy lines in impenetrable jungle. The physics of supply chains, the mechanics of force projection, the realities of hostile terrain all made it “impossible.” And Wingate didn’t break these rules to succeed. He mastered knowledge of them so completely he turned the Japanese own supply infrastructure into his support network, operating where they thought no force could survive.

The same principle applies for investigators of unbelievable craft. The path forward doesn’t have evidence of some gravitic shortcut around physics, some unlocked open backdoor to rescue the hostages we can credit to alien help. It’s in the routines that develop deep mastery of electromagnetic and plasma dynamics that we can turn fundamental forces to our advantage in ways others (who debate when a goose will lay the golden egg) consider impossible. The developmental path is not just more likely; it’s more interesting, because it shows us what’s really possible when we stop looking for silver bullet magic and keep pushing the boundaries of what we actually understand.

Gravitic Drones From China: Classic Counterintelligence Pattern in Livelsberger Case

The gravity propulsion claims in Matthew Livelsberger’s communications merit separate analysis from his testimony about civilian casualties in Afghanistan. This distinction is crucial not only for evaluating his evidence of war crimes but also for understanding current drone operations security.

Claims about gravity control propulsion systems require extraordinary scrutiny because they don’t just suggest advanced engineering – they imply a fundamental revolution in physics that lacks the observable development patterns, infrastructure requirements, and technology supply chains that accompany all major physics breakthroughs. This isn’t merely unlikely; it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific advancement works.

Our current understanding of gravity comes from Einstein’s General Relativity, one of the most thoroughly tested theories in history. Any gravity control system would require either overturning General Relativity, finding fundamental physical mechanisms that have left no trace in any experimental data or theoretical frameworks despite decades of careful measurement and testing, or developing engineering capabilities that bridge enormous theoretical gaps. The closest historical research programs, like the Air Force’s gravity research in the 1950s-70s, produced valuable theoretical work on conventional gravitational effects (like Kerr’s discoveries about rotating masses) but found no pathway to gravity control.

Modern attempts to unify gravity with quantum mechanics – arguably the largest effort in theoretical physics – still struggle with basic questions about gravity’s nature. The idea that classified military research has solved these fundamental questions while leaving no trace in material supply chains, engineering education, or infrastructure development contradicts all historical patterns of technological advancement.

Even if we entertained the possibility of a gravity control breakthrough, implementing it would require a massive scientific and engineering infrastructure, supply chains for exotic materials and components, testing facilities and programs, training programs for operators and maintenance personnel, and fundamental changes to aerospace engineering education. The scale of such an enterprise would be impossible to completely hide.

For comparison, when the Manhattan Project developed nuclear weapons, despite wartime secrecy, thousands of physicists knew the theoretical possibility, the broader scientific community understood the underlying principles, and multiple nations were pursuing similar research. No comparable foundation exists for gravity control technology.

This makes gravity propulsion claims particularly useful for very targeted counterintelligence purposes. They’re superficially plausible to non-experts yet effectively impossible to disprove (unlike claims about conventional technology). They map onto existing UFO and advanced technology beliefs, and they’re so extraordinary that they undermine the credibility of any associated claims. This pattern appears repeatedly in intelligence history. The now famous U-2 program long ago benefited from UFO speculation when stealth technology development was obscured by absurd claims. Advanced drone programs often attract similar technological mythology for similar reasons.

The U-2 case is particularly instructive because it shows how counterintelligence operations deliberately introduced fantastic elements to protect real classified technology. When civilian pilots reported strange aircraft at impossible altitudes, the Air Force would provide multiple, often contradictory explanations ranging from weather balloons to hints of more exotic possibilities. This created a ‘noise floor’ of speculation that effectively discredited legitimate observers by associating their accurate observations with increasingly outlandish claims.

This pattern of introducing fantastic elements to discredit legitimate observers has claimed numerous whistleblowers before Livelsberger. WWII British Naval Intelligence under Godfrey and Fleming used a “double cross system” – varying fake details were inserted into real documents about convoys to detect which German spies were active in specific regions, based on which version of the false information showed up in intercepted communications. In the 1990s, several Gulf War veterans who raised concerns about chemical weapons exposure found their legitimate medical complaints becoming entangled with increasingly exotic theories about secret weapons testing.

Livelsberger’s case follows a well documented progression. His detailed, verifiable testimony about drone strikes and civilian casualties has become intermixed with gravity drive claims in a way that mirrors these historical cases. The key difference is that modern counterintelligence operations maybe have become sophisticated at exploiting integrity vulnerabilties — using combat trauma such as TBI to accelerate a process of narrative contamination. While previous cases often relied on external social pressure and deliberate contradiction to introduce doubt, Livelsberger’s communications suggest a more insidious approach that leverages mental harm and psychological suffering to blur the line between direct observation and introduced fantasy.

This vulnerability-based targeting becomes particularly concerning when we consider the timeline of Livelsberger’s service. His record suggests someone whose moral objections to civilian casualties made him a potential risk for whistleblowing. The introduction of exotic technical elements into his narrative may represent a calculated attempt to force him out of operations through an early retirement on disability status – a modern evolution of old counterintelligence tactics that exploit rather than surveil potential whistleblowers.

If this was indeed the strategy, it backfired tragically. Rather than quietly accepting a glass ceiling leading to medical discharge, Livelsberger appears to have recognized attempted interference and manipulation. His final communications suggest someone who, despite or perhaps because of his combat trauma, maintained enough clarity to provide separate claims. He gave both direct observations of war crimes, as well as exotic claims he was being fed. His choice of suicide while explicitly providing testimony about civilian casualties regardless of the gravity drives suggests a determined effort to ensure his credible core evidence wouldn’t be lost under plausibility of technological revolution.

Meanwhile, modern drone operations face genuine security challenges around detection and tracking capabilities, counter-drone technologies, command and control security, autonomous systems limitations, international airspace regulations, and civilian oversight mechanisms. These real operational concerns, and likely exploits, require serious analysis. Claims about gravity propulsion not only distract from actual drone advanced capabilities but also from legitimate questions about autonomous systems, civilian oversight, and accountability in targeted strikes.

For the national security community, separating these narratives is crucial because Livelsberger’s testimony about civilian casualties in Afghanistan aligns with UN ground investigations, Brown University casualty data, known changes in ROE and reporting requirements, and documented operational patterns. His descriptions of drone operations reflect standard military procedures, known technical capabilities, established command structures, and verifiable policy changes. The gravity propulsion claims, by contrast, show classic signs of introduced disinformation through physically impossible capabilities, absence of supporting infrastructure, and violation of known scientific principles.

Understanding how gravity propulsion claims function as interference helps clarify both the credibility of Livelsberger’s core testimony and the ongoing challenges in drone operations security. It demonstrates why extraordinary claims about breakthrough technologies should be evaluated against the required scientific infrastructure, the broader research community’s knowledge, the physical principles involved, and the historical patterns of similar claims.

When evaluating whistleblower testimony about classified programs, distinguishing between operational reality and introduced disinformation remains essential. Claims that require overturning fundamental physics deserve particular skepticism, especially when they appear alongside more credible testimony about conventional operations and policy violations. This separation allows proper attention to both the serious evidence of civilian casualties and the real technical and ethical challenges in current drone operations – without being diverted by speculation about impossible technologies.


References:

  • Experimental evidence: None exists demonstrating controlled modification of gravitational fields beyond natural mass-energy effects
  • Theoretical framework: Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity – our most thoroughly tested theory of gravity – demonstrates that gravity is not a force that can be “canceled” but rather the curvature of spacetime itself caused by mass-energy
  • Mathematical proof: Forward, R.L. (1963). “Guidelines to Antigravity,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 31, pp. 166-170. Mathematical demonstration that any practical antigravity device would violate fundamental laws of energy conservation.
  • Engineering analysis: Bertolami, O., & Pedro, F.G. (2005). “Gravity Control Propulsion: Towards a General Relativistic Approach.” Instituto Superior Técnico, Departamento de Física, Lisboa, Portugal.

    Understanding our calculation as the energy that must be spent to control a region of space-time, leads to a radically different conclusion. From this point of view, gravity manipulation is an essentially unfruitful process for propulsion purposes.

  • Engineering analysis: Dröscher & Hauser (2009). “Gravitational Field Propulsion“, cites Tajmar’s definitive conclusion:

    Even if modified gravitational laws existed, their usage for space propulsion is negligible… nothing has been uncovered to allow any action-at a-distance force field for space propulsion in interplanetary or interstellar space.

Tesla Cybertruck Static Electricity Risk Analysis: Las Vegas Trump Hotel Winter Morning Explosion


If you or someone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide, trained counselors are available 24/7 at 988, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Military service members and veterans have a Veterans Crisis Line by calling 988 then pressing 1, or texting 838255.

Executive Summary: The Tesla Cybertruck has been plagued with six recalls in just its first year due to design defects. Another one just may have been accidentally revealed in a massive explosion from fuel stored in the truck bed with cover closed. Unpainted flat steel body panels at sharp angles, combined with the dry and cold winter air, and the unsafe storage of metal fuel cans allowing vapor collection around fireworks, may have generated the kind of high charge static electricity tinder that made a sudden combustion inevitable.

High Risk Factors

This Cybertruck combination presents a highly elevated static electricity risk:

  • Low humidity (20% typical desert morning)
  • Cold temperatures (-5°C)
  • Large metallic surface area with sharp angles causing charge concentration points
  • Known defects in Cybertruck electrical grounding
  • High-speed long distance travel

Environmental Conditions

  • Air Temperature: -5°C (cold morning)
  • Relative Humidity: 20% (typical desert morning)
  • Vehicle Speed: 75 mph (33.528 m/s)
  • Distance: 1,300,000 m (Colorado Springs to Las Vegas)
  • Cross-sectional Area: 5.7 m²
  • Air Breakdown Field Strength: 3 × 10⁶ V/m (at sea level)

Material Properties

  • Steel Permittivity: 8.85 × 10⁻¹² F/m
  • Air Permittivity: 8.86 × 10⁻¹² F/m
  • Steel Resistivity: 6.9 × 10⁻⁷ Ω⋅m

Results

Charge Accumulation Rate: 1.20e-1 C/s
Maximum Realistic Voltage: 3.00e+4 V
Discharge Probability: 80.0%
Charge Ratio (Cybertruck/Normal Truck): 1.67x

Risk Assessment

  • The Cybertruck’s angular metallic design creates 1.67x more charge accumulation than standard trucks
  • Cold desert morning conditions (-5°C, 20% humidity) significantly increase static risk
  • Voltage buildup is limited by air breakdown at 3.0 MV/m
  • Discharge probability is 80.0% under these conditions

Circumstances

  • It’s illegal to transport fireworks and gas cans together in a truck bed (or trunk, or inside a car). The victim was active duty military with knowledge in flammable/explosive material handling such as fuel cans so this doesn’t seem accidental.
  • The truck bed cover being closed means vapor likely accumulated for a while on a long drive, creating a dangerously combustible moment, also probably not accidental.
  • The Cybertruck has known electrical design flaws related to improper grounding and potential fire hazards, such as potential arcs when being shifted into park or during mechanical transitions. It is unlikely this was factored by the victim.
  • Metal fuel cans in a metal truck have been a known danger of sudden vapor combustion for many years, quickly destroying cars, begging the question whether Tesla ignored known safety practices.

    …the Petroleum Equipment Institute, a trade group, found that there were at least 170 static electricity fires at gas stations from 1992 to 2006. …the problem probably isn’t a big one. Unless, of course, it’s your car that has burst into flames. Since Mrs. Shager’s pickup was destroyed in November, at least two other serious fires at gas stations have been attributed to static electricity, including one that severely burned a woman.

Some of this math may help explain the mystery surrounding 17 long seconds after the Cybertruck robotically parked itself neatly and quietly in front of the Trump Hotel (instead of crashing into the lobby) and began to emit smoke from the bed.

…military ID, passport and credit cards were found in the vehicle, along with several firearms, and that the driver had shot himself in the head before the vehicle detonated. “I’m comfortable calling it a suicide,” [Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff] McMahill said at the briefing. […] …gasoline canisters, camp fuel canisters and large firework mortars were found in the back of the vehicle after the explosion, which occurred about 15 seconds after the vehicle pulled in front of the building. It’s still unclear how the explosives were ignited, McMahill said.

If suicide of a US Army soldier with explosives expertise — self-immolation as protest — is officially suspected then a lot of the analysis shifts.

It’s possible firing a gun intentionally ignited the bed full of explosive fuel vapor. Or it’s possible the Cybertruck itself sparked in an electrical or mechanical event causing an ignition, after his suicide and unintentionally. There are many possibilities still, as details are being released, but static electricity risk might be considered another design defect of the Cybertruck worth investigating.

Iran Plunged Into Energy Crisis Due to Funds Redirected to Assad

The lights and heat are being turned down in Iran after they realize investing in Assad has left them vulnerable and unprepared for winter.

Despite boasting massive gas reserves, Iran is facing power blackouts and industrial shutdowns. Years of mismanagement and false priorities threaten to turn the country into an energy importer. […]
Karimi said Iran has spent billions of dollars over decades to prop up the Assad regime, including by supplying it with millions of barrels of crude for free. “Iran has reportedly spent over $25 billion on Syria, primarily through oil support,” she added. “This pattern of prioritizing regional alliances over infrastructure investment has left Iran’s energy sector in dire need of modernization.”