NOTICE: The page below has been permenently FROZEN as of January 2000. Due to resource limitations, this section of our website is no longer maintained, so some links may not work and some information may be out of date. We have retained this page for archive reference only, and we cannot vouch for its accuracy. Broken links will not be repaired, and minor errors will not be corrected. You are responsible for independently verifying any information you may find here. More Info
Please disregard any requests for new information. Except in cases of significant error, no changes will be made to this page.
Dispatches from Richard Boylan
From: rich.boylan@24stex.com
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 98 15:00:56 -0800
Subject: antigravity:yes
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:03:48 -0400 (EDT) <
> Subject: Re: Reply to Erik Davis (fwd) <
> From: Craig Lang <crlang@mm.com>
<
Dr. Boylan said: <
> > 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. < <
> <
Craig Martin responded:
> What qualifies you to determine that the aerobatics you saw were <
> driven by <
> antigravity? Did you have instrumentation with you to measure the G <
> field as the <
> object flew past? Please explain your conclusion that the maneuvers <
> were <
> electrogravitic in nature. If you are going to make a claim, please <
> supply <
> verifiable evidence to support that claim (Note: "inside informants" <
> don't count). <
(Dr. Boylan:)
<
Inside governmental expert informants certainly do count. Mr. Lang,
you do not get to create a whole special set of "rules" that require that
UFO/ET phenomena be subjected to different kinds of evidence than is used for
the rest of human experience. <
The aerobatics of the craft indicate that inertial effects of regular
craft mass were not operative. The cancelling of mass effects is ascribed by
most investigators to gravitational-effect cancellation, i.e., antigravity. <
(Craig Martin:) <
> Better yet, try simple logic. If antigravity propulsion in being <
> used in fielded <
> military hardware, why would they use reaction propulsion at all? <
> This makes no <
> sense either from a budgetary or a military standpoint.
(Dr. Boylan:) <
But equipping a craft like the B-2 with both conventional propulsion
and with electrogravitic field propulsion DOES make sense from a Black Project
perspective. Having an openly-declared craft like the B-2 flying allows
military pilots to get experience operating in antigravity mode, AFTER they
have taken off conventionally with jet thrust and gained altitude, safely away
from prying civilian eyes.
<
(Craig Martin:)
> If you have proof, please show it to us. Let's hear the physics <
> (including the <
> math) behind these craft. Lets see working hardware. If you don't <
<
I did not say that I built the B-2's electrogravitics system. My Ph.D.
is not in classified quantum physics. Dr. Michael Wolf, National Security
Council scientist on NSC's unacknowledged MJ-12 subcommittee, says that only a
former CIA Deputy Director of Operations and he (Wolf) have the latter refined
formula for antigravity used in current undeclared military aerospace
platforms. Since I am neither of those gentlemen, I am not in a position to
share that classified formula. Are you so naive as to expect that such
highly-classified physics formula would be publicly available? <
As for seeing the electrogravitics hardware (in situ), just go to the
next air show featuring a B-2 Stealth bomber.
<
<
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: Fri Jun 12 18:03:49 EDT 1998