A dark fleet in black space.

[Antaletriangle]

A DARK FLEET IN BLACK SPACE
Part II
by Vincent R. White
(Copyright 2009, Vince R. White - All Rights Reserved)




What do we have here?

A glowing high-speed helicopter, or field propulsion?

"The Night of 'The Jumpers' "


Let's add the observations of another separate group founded by veteran researcher, Bill Hamilton.

On May 28, 1991 during a full moon night, just south of the Northrop facility, the group initially saw a light emerge from a ridge in the Tehachapi's. The light was white, and moved westward, reached a definite location, and in Bill's words, "started strobing with fluorescent red and white lights."

Bill Hamilton confided:

"It began to jump and dance in erratic movements".

The group detected the "silhouette" of a boomerang shape against the fading dim light. Bill describes, "A second and third object appeared".

This group's founder named these objects "Jumpers" for their impossibly rapid movements.

The next night, over a dozen additional group members saw more than two dozen boomerang-shaped "Jumpers". A large, triangular craft that "flew forward, backwards and on its side" was also sighted that night.

We have again here, unambiguous non-aerodynamic vehicles sighted by many witnesses. Mysteriously, although photos were taken, nothing registered on 1000 ASA film. It certainly registered visually and in the memories of the participants.

In all of this aerial circus, no jet fighters from George AFB or Edwards AFB roared overhead to intercept these exotic craft. A clear signal that this activity was known and sanctioned as "our" test flights.

Skeptics dishonestly throw this unambiguous data out, while empiricists diligently add it to a large highly anomalous sighting database.

More Woodshed Punishment


The facts must be faced. Discard prejudice, preconception, misconception and rumor. The juxtaposition of aerospace facilities and an array of very exotic vehicles, clearly sighted, was no coincidence.

Ignore this, and risk, at your peril, the prospect of a very painful surprise.

"Ludicrous!" shout the skeptics, "It couldn't be kept secret!" the yell.

My answer is that it wasn't kept secret, except to the millions relying on mass media and aerospace journals.

One editor of Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST) Magazine lived in the Antelope Valley and knew the founder of one of the privately organized observation groups personally. Yet none of the really spectacular sightings, unambiguous saucer-shaped field observations made it into AW&ST.

The multi-billion dollar question is "Why?"


"Why" is right! Especially, when this same AW&ST editor never let a single squeak of a comment appear in the pages of this prestigious space age chronicle of our times about the fact that an entire room of his home was devoted to an archive of books, periodicals and reports, ALL on UFOS.

If the lazy avoiders of the import of these sightings became suddenly aware of what they were neglecting, the shameless avoidance of this nexus of many highly exotic sightings and activity should result in much consternation and apologies aplenty.

Jane's Defense Weekly (JDW) also missed these sightings.

But UFO magazines didn't. They ran numerous articles in the early 90's about this on-going activity. Is it the quality of the observations or is it the particular content that is being filtered out of existence?

We now see the rules about what gets reported in major aerospace journals.

If it leads to a UFO, or is a UFO, it is taboo territory. Where is recent global UFO activity in the pages of AW&ST or JDW? There is no current UFO activity-in these pages.

What goes on behind closed editorial doors at Aviation Week or Jane's Defense Weekly?

Why are there no articles on the Stephensville, Texas UFO activity (with 10 F-16's on full afterburner chasing these interlopers).

Why no coverage of a UFO hanging in broad daylight over gate C-7 at Chicago's O'Hare concourse, one of the busiest airports in the world?

Why are there no stories on the Black Triangle activity that haunts interstates and a hundred cities. All these events constitute aerial security issues but are not covered at all.

Are these "ours" or "theirs"?


The answers do not appear in current policy pages of any aerospace journals.

Why not?


Was the Disclosure Project press conference on May 9, 2001 covered in Aviation Week?

It was one the best attended conferences in National Press Club history. It had defense related significance. When over twenty former high-ranking military, intelligence and corporate officials make incredible UFO-related claims that strike at the heart of Aviation Weeks reportorial domain, it is news, isn't it? But all this was silently sidestepped. How and why?

Reporters were handed the equivalent of a thick, large bloody steak.

They had 4-inch thick press packets, and claims and testimonies to inquire into, substantive and definitive claims that they could have taken to an editor and asked to dig into, either to demolish in careful reporter work, disgracing and dismissing the press club event as one of the greatest hoaxes ever or to validate their accounts with reportorial due diligence.

The other possibility must have hung like a black cloud behind closed doors of many an editorial office, where editor after editor must have said:

"Do you realize, what you are asking us to do?

We are taking on the government itself! How can we do that, when our licenses come up for review (?) and hints and messages come from on high and the owners say (?):

"We can't bite the regulatory hands that feed us-we will not do this!"

It is news isn't it, when a retired Lt. Col. John Williams testifies that the U.S. government may have spent more on gravity research than any other single project. Other witnesses spoke of antigravity chambers in use. Still others spoke of operational "Alien Reproduction Vehicles" or ARVs.

One amazing claim after another was made.

The silence of big media is almost as good as an investigative housekeeping stamp of approval that something really bigis being hidden, and this is absolutely real.

Where was Aviation Week's blistering editorial branding these witnesses as a rare collection of lunatics and liars? The silence was mute testimony to an untouchable story.

Why didn't corporations named as participants in gravity control success, cry fowl and threaten legal action over fraudulent claims-or do they quietly seek to creep into the shadows of secrecy on these matters?

Where were the military and intelligence agency legal penalties for spreading fraudulent tales--or do they simply want to avoid publicity at all costs?

The existing public record "does not compute."

One of the biggest best attended news conferences in US history simply didn't exist. The absence of coverage by the three big broadcast networks (ABC/CBS/NBC) is a stamp of censorship that is so blatant that it is like a slap in the face of a free press and free nation --- or do you think that this event "was missed" by all three broadcast networks could happen by accident?

If aerospace journalists ignore UFO sightings, would they ignore what looks and acts like a UFO, if it emerged from a known test facility? All the more, if "our" UFOs were saucer-shaped-for if reported accurately, they would lead in the blink of an eye to "theirs" or that even greater taboo, the dreaded word...

"UFOs!"


Surely, skeptics will retort, the scientific paper trail would be thick with published peer reviewed papers on gravity engineering advances.
Not at all, for consider the strange history of U.S. gravity research. In the 50's many major aircraft companies ran glowing accounts of gravity developments; corporations such as Glenn Martin, Convair, Sperry-Rand and Bell Aircraft were predicting near-term success, such as airliner speeds of 10,000 mph.

There were scattered studies indicating inductive coupling between electromagnetic fields and gravity-these virtually disappeared after the early 60's. The predictions of imminent fantastic success faded away.

Where are sad stories of gravity research dead ends and projects ending in failure? Where are the test results that indicated failed experiments?

Why are all the results missing?


Did gravity work (like nuclear work in the 30's) quietly go deep black--- leaving nothing but a Cheshire cat grin -lighting up the darkness of a black gravity cat in a black world?

Evidence?


There is a very curious document, this author having a copy that was discovered by gravity researcher Dr. Paul La Violette. It was unearthed out of the technical library of Wright-Patterson AFB and was the only known copy in the entire U.S. entitled:

"ELECTROGRAVITICS SYSTEMS
An Examination of Electrostatic Motion,
Dynamic Counterbary and Barycentric Control".


It was written by the Gravity Research Group (GRG), a UK-based "Think Tank." In this report, GRG painted a very remarkable picture of many U.S. major aerospace corporations with intense and active gravity research efforts in the mid 50's. There are tantalizing references to "test rigs" and of a reference to a Pentagon goal of developing a "flying disc" by 1960.

Are the debunkers correct, were all those who evaluated "electrogravitics " just gullible fools? This is a leap of blanket judgement, breathtaking in its careless sweep and simplicity.

What happened to this widespread optimistic gravity effort?
Where are the gloomy reports of project after project cancellations?
Or, did deeply quiet success result in saucer-shaped objects lifting off from remote test sites in the 80's, or earlier, much earlier?

A rare exception to the silence on gravity research was a June 10, 1995 Jane's Defense Weekly story by Nick Cook, mentioning that evidence indicated exotic advanced technology efforts were probably going on in "Area 51."

This rare story also mentioned a black world U.S. contractor, SAIC's Electric Propulsion 1990 study on inductive coupling between electromagnetic fields and gravity, done for the USAF Astronautics Laboratory.

Was Nick Cook's article in Jane's Defense Weekly
a break in the secrecy curtain?


It is this author's contention that there exists a matrix of facts that point collectively toward a concealment of enormous scientific and engineering achievement. This "mountain of facts" is covered over by the same blanket of secrecy that conceals UFO reality. It is concealed by similar mechanisms of keeping real leaks under ridicule's light and a stone wall of no answers of any acknowledgement of any genuine facts.

It may be concealed by the curious disappearance of vital records, whether they be Roswell-related documents or the work of Thomas Townsend Brown.

Has the full truth emerged out of what appears to be an effort at calculated misdirection and disinformation?

T.T. Brown's work with the "gravitor," a capacitance device, developed along with Professor Paul Alfred Biefeld, produced what came to be known as "The Biefeld-Brown Effect."

The Biefeld-Brown Effect


This "effect" at high voltage in a hard vacuum produced a strong net "gravitor" thrust-an antigravity effect. According to Jean-Louis-Naudin of JLN labs, a signed letter by T.T .Brown himself testifies to the Paris vacuum tests at the French corporation SNASCO.

Are these results a lie?

Were these results found by those who could not tell a vacuum from atmospheric pressure?

This effect is written off as "ion" wind by the mainstream and self-appointed arbiters of truth who happen to have worked in locations and jobs where secret research on such technology may have taken place, and disinformation became a stock in trade. Some of these arbiters have curious bird names that they have been tagged with, which some suggest indicates their agenda is not all evident.

Who was Thomas Townsend Brown?


The superb ground breaking research of author Paul Schatzkin has revealed the double life of this physicist. The evidence indicates that he spent his life in an elaborate and dedicated secret service to his country.

Brown accepted a public record of itinerant tinkering when in the judgement of this observer, his lab notes, reveal he could have earned several Nobel prizes in physics at a minimum. Many have earned one for much less.

After a demonstration in Hawaii of his essential mechanism, he went "black" and worked in many locations, including the evidence point towards the new still totally hidden NRO, the satellite spy agency, and he seems to have played a key role in prime breakthroughs in advanced physics.

To those who think this work was that of a charlatan and fool, his close colleague in this was the late Dr. Robert Sarbacher who revealed that he had attended high-level conferences at which crash retrievals were discussed and worked with him at the nascent NRO.

He also worked closely with "TT" at one of several secret labs, including one in Maryland. Further evidence is the visitor log to his secret labs, which included General Curtis Lemay. Also of telling significance was a meeting, at least once, with Dr. Ed Teller. It seems doubtful that this would be to examine "an ion wind effect."

A long list of physicists and technologists, many of whom were involved in corporations that were deeply researching gravity physics also visited the multiple research sites that "TT" worked in. It is also clear that much of the public knowledge of the Biefeld-Brown Effect seems to have involved much higher voltages, different dielectrics, and still unknown proprietary features, with combinations of pulsed DC , AC overlays, and what is a form of what is known as a "resonant stationary wave," or a high frequency "field-induced soliton" phenomena, and other added features of unknown structure and forms.

Some of this may have extended into the strange physics that Nikola Tesla was probing, with such things as extremely strong resonant AC circuits, shock discharge Coulomb waves and other exotica.

You would think that NASA would at least want to take a look at this, wouldn't you?

However, according to a member of the formerly NASA-funded; "Breakthrough Propulsion Physics" project" (BPP), the Biefeld-Brown effect works solely by ion wind and has no effect on gravity.

The BPP was ostensibly a project to scout and scour for "out of the box" space propulsion ideas. Curiously, NASA has taken out a variant patent on a annular version of the basic Biefeld-Brown device design for attitude control in low earth orbit (in spite of T.T. Brown's similar patent). This is very odd, especially, for a device that supposedly will not work in a vacuum of low earth orbit.

According to Jonathan Campbell of NASA, recent tests performed on a modern day version of the Biefeld-Brown device called "a lifter," in a hard vacuum, at 50KV, produced no effect at all. Something doesn't add up, according to another source, a company with a vacuum test facility, looking at the same test results, indicated that there was a net vacuum thrust or force.

Publicly T.T. Brown's work appears to have been ignored and considered "a dead end," yet there are tantalizing hints that this isn't so.


Part III will be posted February 18, 2009