Dispatches from Richard Boylan
From: rich.boylan@24stex.com
Date: Sat, 23 May 98 11:49:33 -0800
Subject: Reply to Erik Davis
From: Rich Boylan <
To: Nids@kitfox.anv.net <
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 3549 (RE: [FWD: [FWD: RE: WARP DR) <
<
> 1) I'm not a government scientist and I have personally (within <
> feet) seen the B-2 and F-22 fly. They do not levitate or rotate in <
> mid-air. They "fly" by the standard methods of aeronautics. They <
> (the aircraft) are too small to contain any "antigravity" hardware <
> (since there isn't any yet because NASA is spending money to develop <
<
Eric Davis, <
<
As a scientist on the payroll of NIDS, Las Vegas billionaire Bob <
Bigelow's organization to understand "exotic" and extraterrestrial <
technology, you professed uninformedness about antigravity field <
propulsion systems is puzzling. You are in contact with (former) <
government officials, such as NSA (oops, "Army") Intelligence Colonel John <
Alexander. Since Mr. Bigelow has spent considerable sums trying to master <
extraterrestrial phenomena, and has some of the government's highest UFO <
experts on the NIDS payroll, your claim of ignorance about successfully- <
applied electrogravitics is most puzzling. <
The B-2 Stealth bomber would certainly not display its highly- <
classified antigravity field propulsion during take-off or landings, when
there <
are observers around, but rather use its conventional jet thrust propulsion. <
Your not observing the B-2s electrogravitics system in action is hardly proof <
that it does not exist. <
Nobody claimed that the F-22 has electrogravitics on board. Please do <
not misquote me. <
If however, you had seen the Lockheed-Martin X-22A two-man <
antigravity disc fly "impossible" aerobatics, as I did in a side canyon of
Area <
51, you would have little doubt that unconventional propulsion was in use. <
Unless you have (undeclared) Above Top Secret clearance for <
black-program antigravity research and development, how would you know <
what size antigravity equipment is or how much space it takes? (To make the <
assertion that it "can't fit" within a B-2 Stealth bomber.) <
You seem to take NASA/USAF's cover stories to shroud their black <
program's R&D at face value. One would expect more acumen of an NIDS <
employee working with "ex"-spooks. <
<
> 2) Electrogravitics! It's actually <
> gravitoelectric and that is still in theoretical development with <
> hints that an industry scientist conducted gravitoelectric <
> experiments. The current Marshal Space Center antigravity research <
<
Eric, no doubt you are sincere in what you believe and what you have
been told. But my information on applied antigravity field propulsion in
fully-operational U.S. craft comes from Colonel Donald Ware, USAF (ret.), Dr.
Michael Wolf, NSA MJ-12 Committee, and Colonel Steve Wilson, USAF (ret.), in
addition to my own personal observations. <
<
> 3) The Venture Star is <
> not the X-33! The X-33 is a one-third scale experimental platform. <
> It is propelled by linear aerospike engines fueled by H2/O2. 90% of <
> the X-33 AND Venture Star's size is due to the huge fuel tanks <
> needed to carry fuel into orbit. Hydrogen is difficult to compress and <
> store, so it can only be put in relatively large tanks on launch <
<
Lockheed-Martin in its official announcement describes the X-33 as the
"first stage" of building its reuseable, single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. Your
argument that the VentureStar will not have electrogravitics on board because
you cannot figure where they would put it is hardly a scientific argument. But
it is a classic CSICOP "argument". <
<
> GEEPERS! If antigravity hardware did exist, the launch <
> vehicles, bombers and fighters would be much smaller than they are <
> now. <
<
Again, it is interesting that you seem to know the precise size
measurements requirements of antigravity hardware, and yet declare that it
does not exist. Hmmm. <
> In fact, they wouldn't need to be manned! Just have
<
> antigravity UAV's do all the combat/bombing work - don't need <
> pilots. <
<
Your assertion seems to confuse antigravity field _propulsion_ with
guidance requirements. Antigravity field propulsion does not eliminate the
need for a guidance system. Currently the U.S. chooses to use live pilots in
its earliest publicly-operational vehicle, the B-2. Later on, they may choose
to use remote guidance systems. I am informed by Colonel Wilson that the
military have a remotely-guided antigravity military reconnaissance drone
which is operational. This has been reported by other observers as well. <
At any rate, pilots or remote guidance has little to do with the
existence of operating electrogravitic/antigravity U.S. vehicles. <
<
<
<
Richard Boylan, Ph.D. <
<
Richard Boylan, Ph.D., LLC 2826 O Street, Suite 2, Sacramento, CA 95816, USA. <
(916) 455-0120 E-mail: rich.boylan@24stex.com ; Primary website: <
http://www.ufonetwork.com/boylan/ Author of: "Close Extraterrestrial <
Encounters", "Labored Journey To The Stars" and "Project Epiphany". <
|
Created: Sat May 23 14:57:20 EDT 1998