You are making story up as you go, where you get the secret? Since the technology is a secret means only US has it, why not show it off? Secret based on a questionable thermal-infrared photo anyway.

Biefeld -Brown Effect is your answer if you never heard about this. Brown stopped using the word "electrogravitics" and instead used the more acceptable scientific terminology "stress in dielectrics."

You are Smart. I can’t get the reason BUT i am wondering if the higher voltage offered by static charges could make up the difference. If the charge replenishes fast enough it could run the ionic propulsion. As a lifter it would be used to hover a slightly heavy ship without touching the ground.

The ions’ role has potential implications for the atmosphere, climate, and human health.


I never mentioned of proof but Brown had talked about it in 1950s. You can refer to LaViolette's, he is damn intelligent and what he present is real.

I did talk about the Biefield-Brown Effect a couple of post back. It has a link exactly like the one below inside it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
It is known as electrohydrodynamics by other scientists. It is well documented and anti-gravity does not play any part inside of it. It works just like a jet engine that uses ions instead of heated gasses for thrust.
You are treating his book like some sort of bible that can't be wrong. You are basing everything on belief. Nothing scientific about it all. You need proof for science.

This is nothing more than a story telling thread that serves no real purpose.

From the first post :
Secret of antigravity is held by the military secretly and Black ops. It was discovered long ago back in the 1800's. Read up on all the airship reports from back then and you will see why I say that. Who the inventor or inventors are is a mystery and what became of these airships as well is a mystery as well.

You are contradicting yourself. If no one knows who the inventors are, how would you know that they exist? This is equivalent to saying nothing.

What aircrafts were around during the 1800's? The only known working aircrafts during those time were balloons and gliders. Given that the science behind those are well known, I don't see any point at looking at them for proof of anti-gravity. If you have something specific in mind, say it. Don't make others do your own work for you.

This example is based on several example of propulsion system from "The Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion." Page 152.

The flying craft would be moved forward by creating a gravity well or "gravity gradient". The craft, along with it's occupant, fall into the gravity well together, i.e. move forward together. To the passenger inside the craft there is no sense of falling and no sense of direction changes, no "G-Forces with straning faces of grunting passengers struggling to remain conscious by tightening the lower muscles of the body to retain blood in the brain. The craft can change direction instantly in sharp zipping turns and the passengers would not feel the changes of direction relative to the craft.

The "Gravity Well" is created through gradient differences by a charged ion field generated in front of the craft shown by +(plus) signs. The "Gravity Hill" is the dense jet of charged -(negative) ions thrust out behind the craft.

A gravity gradient is created between the negative hill and the positive well drawing the craft and occupants in the direction of the Gravity Well.

Nothing to do with the 1800s or airships.

Ion propulsion has been used by NASA since the 1960s. If there were anti-gravity effects, they would have detected it by now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster

Got this part is wrong. Missed the word "no" in front of the G-Forces. Sorry.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Did you even bother researching any of these examples on the internet?

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 5 2012, 10:54 PM

No...just share and exchange the related document with other on email that interested in antigravity. I didn't bother you to reply. Are you Freaking out? Sorry.

Why would I be freaking out? Freaking out means that there's actual real and interesting information being presented. You have presented neither.

okay you are right...but i have nothing to say.Peace!

According to your explanation as if gravity don't exist and the craft pierce through air like needle, even if the craft can void gravity, it still subject to air friction and turbulence. Unless the technology transfer the air in front and place it at the back, its a miracle stuff.

For this part to happen you need to cancel out inertia, not gravity. Inertia depends on mass not weight. Your passengers will still be affected by the movement of the vehicle even though there is no gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

For share from another member :

It would not be much of stealth bomber if you could hear it coming or see it coming(contrails) would it?

---

Added on April 6, 2012, 9:19 amWhy does the B-2 need to take off from a runway if it can do the above? It should be able to take off like a helicopter since it can hover if it was using anti-gravity technology.

This post has been edited by Eventless: Apr 6 2012, 09:19 AM

If you are interested enough you will do the work for yourself. If you choose not to look then the loss is yours, not mine.

Please see attachment PDF copy History of aircraft in 1800’s

Derigibles were around but they were often times noticably different and there was very few around and they of coarse were slow moving.

Other links :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_airship

---

Added on April 6, 2012, 2:09 pmAfter taking off conventionally, the B-2 can switch to antigravity mode and fly around the world without refueling.

http://www.stripes.com/news/the-plan-keep-...l-2058-1.173113




This post has been edited by norther: Apr 6 2012, 02:09 PM


Attached File(s)
 Early_Airship_Sightings.pdf ( 242.28k ) Number of downloads: 14
 History_of_the_Mystery_Airship_Sightings_in_the_late_1800_s.pdf ( 153.46k ) Number of downloads: 11

Those events are like the UFO stories of today. Does not really prove anything. Except that aliens may have anti-gravity tech. It does not mean that humans had the technology back then.

The content of the link does not match what you have described. Another bogus link.

That part on planned upgrade does not mean that they are putting in anti-gravity technology. That being said did the B-2 originally have anti-gravity technology or not? Why would they need to put it in if it was already using it? Your stories are contradicting itself.

this is too tangent and your link too much wikipedia. I have no idea if the answer all the way from wiki.




This post has been edited by norther: Apr 8 2012, 12:03 AM

Wikipedia is a good source of information if you know how to use it. You should learn to use it to get a better understanding of things instead of basing everything solely on your book. So far you've been showing stuff without understanding what you are showing.

How exactly is my post a tangent compared to what you have been posting?

Im also wikipedian...hmm..quite long time ago and tend to save all information about Science, medical, especially vaccination and of course Cancer (including melanoma, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, and many others). All the information i kept it factual with references, citations, and literature links.

I am not to offend and lets me tell you something about wikipedia - At the very bottom of most Wikipedia pages, there now is a "Rate This Page" survey box, where you may click to leave feedback as to whether it is "trustworthy," "objective," "complete" or "well-written." To submit your evaluation with just a couple of clicks. You can also click "View Page Ratings" to see how others have voted. No personal information is collected.

Ok now what i can see it is incompleteness, incompetence, or outright bias.

Wikipedia is an extremely popular internet resource, visited by millions. Persons unfamiliar with science, medical, engineering, politics etc and tend to uncritically accept what they read there, unaware that it may be false or misleading.


They can DELETE pages they don't like.

There's also a section at the bottom called reference where the information is derived can be found. The references allows you to look deeper if necessary. It is a good starting point to do further research if one so desires. You don't use it solely as source of information.

You are basing this on?

They have been known to mark pages when there's insufficient or doubtful references. That sounds competent enough to me.

What is wrong with removing pages if the information is not up to their standards?

They also delete topics here, does that mean you should not be using this forum?

Is the source of bias the due to the fact that it does not support any of your facts?