Rare Keyhoe Article On Antigravity Research: re UFOs

[Ivan Seeking]

Editor's Note: Major Keyhoe has been writing about Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO's) for over 15 years. [written in 1967.Vangard] From the outset he has insisted that flying saucers are real and interplanetary, and many authorities have come to agree with him. Now he claims that control over gravity itself is the only explanation for the astounding maneuvers which saucers are said to make. Some physicists dismiss this theory as fundamentally erroneous. But, as you will read, there are others who find Major Keyhoe's latest chapter in "The Great Flying Saucer Story" important and plausible.

http://www.debshome.com/Keyhoe_Antigravity.html

 

[FZ+]

I am going to presume UFOs he saw are real etc.

This startlingly swift acceleration is a maneuver that could not be duplicated by any ship now made on Earth. What makes it possible for UFO's? According to many scientists and engineers, there is only one possible answer. The answer is ANTIGRAVITY : artificial gravity fields and control of gravity power.

Ok, pop quiz - what's gravity got to do with it?

Mr Keyhoe needs to read his Newtonian physics. The key thing about accelerationg is the change of momentum they involve. The thing is suspension of the conservation of momentum, not creating "antigravity". Antigravity cannot be directional as the sort of things he requries shows, but only apply between massive objects.

For no jets and exhausts, look at the Stealth Bomber. For unconventional propulsion, like ion propulsion, look at the so-called "Lifter". No antigravity.

Robotic craft are certainly a possibility.

Several years ago, Glenn Martin's vice-president for advanced design, G.S. Trimble, predicted that by 1985 practically all airliners would be using artificial gravity, flying at almost unbelievable speeds.

Hmm...

Though no breakthrough has occurred (unless in highly secret projects) two significant facts have been established.

Ahha! Now the article has stopped giving pointless quotes that cannot be verified, we can really begin to dish the dirt.

1. The Earth's G field is relatively weak, compared with the pull of gravity between planets and the sun.

This is BS. First, there is no distance given. Secondly, this is easy to prove or disprove with a few statistics on the distance between here and the sun etc. Third, the force from the Earth's "weak field" on the sun, with Newton's universal gravitation is exactly equal to the force of the sun and the earth.

2. There is a connection between gravity and electromagnetic fields.

Holy $hit! Excuse me, but I would think I would be aware if the Unified Field Theory had been found. The author has most certainly been found with his pants down.

Some scientists still call the gravity shield idea a "lunatic fringe" notion. But many now refuse to say that such a thing is completely impossible.

It is foolish to call anything completely impossible. But this gives no-indication that this is possible.

The results, Heim stated, if applied to space fight, would be direct levitation, conversion of electricity into kinetic energy without any waste, and "immunizing the occupants and the structures of such vehicles against any effects from acceleration of the vehicle, however great and violent."

"His approach is not in conflict with known laws of nature, and it agrees with the quantum theory," A.R. Weyl said in an analysis for the British magazine, Aeronautics.

I dunno, but the second law of thermodynamics seems like a very large law of nature to be in conflict with.

Some scientists are already saying privately that Einstein's famous "general theory of relativity" may turn out to be totally fallacious.

Of course it is false. Nothing is completely true. But didn't Weyl just say that the theory is not in conflict with known laws? Might I note how utterly stupid and insane to be talking about GR being utterly false is when you are comparing the most tested theory of all time with one based on speculation about things that may or may not even exist, and is certainly untestable, and is based on postulates that have never been shown in any experiment.

But, as you will read, there are others who find Major Keyhoe's latest chapter in "The Great Flying Saucer Story" important and plausible.

These people are fools who have chosen to blind themselves to what real experiments tell us about the world.

Grr...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well put.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok, pop quiz - what's gravity got to do with it?

I've always wondered why the fascination with the term "anti-gravity" as if it really meant something. Sometimes these things come from science fiction (hyperspace anyone?). Any idea where this one comes from? Sounds like Star Trek.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I've always wondered why the fascination with the term "anti-gravity" as if it really meant something. Sometimes these things come from science fiction (hyperspace anyone?). Any idea where this one comes from? Sounds like Star Trek.

From the mother ship. dah!

This is one unfortunate aspect of the UFO claims. Even if the claimed observations did take place as described, the true believers tend to then formulate their own theories about what they allegedly saw. This only adds to the Boloney.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I've always wondered why the fascination with the term "anti-gravity" as if it really meant something. Sometimes these things come from science fiction (hyperspace anyone?). Any idea where this one comes from? Sounds like Star Trek.

I think more star wars with "anti-grav thrusters".(Why didn't they just do something half-reasonable like ion thrusters etc?) Before that, Jules Verne for a device that "shields from gravity", thus allowing you to cheat the laws of thermodynamics etc.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
I think more star wars with "anti-grav thrusters".(Why didn't they just do something half-reasonable like ion thrusters etc?) Before that, Jules Verne for a device that "shields from gravity", thus allowing you to cheat the laws of thermodynamics etc.

Actually, things like "warp drive" and "hyperspace" have their roots in science first - Sci Fi borrows many of these ideas from real scientists. Also, why would we expect aliens to use 20th century human technology? By definition this does make an alien presence impossible. So again this notion that claims should sound more familiar only results from predisposed beliefs that void objective considerations. In fact, one might argue that in order to sound more plausible, hoaxers would choose to use such familiar examples rather than far fetched, exotic claims that obviously count against credibility.