• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Dr Eric Davis at 2010 SSE discussing UFO propulsion, Skinwalker Ranch and more...


Christopher O'Brien

Back in the Saddle Aginn
Staff member
From UFO UPDATES:
From: J. Maynard Gelinas <[email protected]>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <[email protected]>Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:18:40 +0800
Subject: Dr. Eric W. Davis' UFO Statements @ SSE Lecture

Dr. Eric W. Davis, Of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion PhysicsProject, Discussed UFOs During Lecture

By J. Maynard GelinasDr.

Eric W. Davis, formerly a contract research physicist atNASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project, which ran from1996 through to 2002, gave a lecture in 2010 where he respondedto the question of UFOs as they pertain to potential physics fortraversable wormholes, warp drives, and anti-gravity. Sponsoredby the Society for Scientific Exploration, the lecture was abouta then recently published book, Frontiers of Propulsion Science,that discussed discoveries from the NASA project.

After the lecture, during a question and answer session, one questionerasked whether, "...properties of UFOs had guided the thinkingand research of that initiative." In responding to the question,Dr. Davis said, "Secretly yes and overtly no."In giving a reason for the secrecy, he stated that, "UFOs don'thave credibility with mainstream academic researchers," andthat, "...policy makers and decision-makers in charge of fundingand programatics ... don't want to hear the topic of UFOs. So,for the purpose of doing this officially, [we didn't bring inUFOs], but we did consider it under the table."Dr. Davis was a technical consultant to the NASA project.

He obtained a PhD in Astrophysics from the University of Arizona in 1991, was a cofounder of a joint NASA-JSC's Advanced Deep SpaceTransport Technology Assessment group studying advanced propulsion physics, and has authored several papers on zero-point vacuum physics for propulsion as well as the potential of traversable wormholes.

Delving further into the subject, Dr. Davis noted that some had,"...looked at all the physical events and physical descriptions[of UFO data] provided by researchers such as [Jaques Vallee,George Hathaway, and the unnamed questioner]."

He described twoevents that took place at the NIDS Utah Ranch of, "...one scientist and one researcher seeing a wormhole, what looked like a wormhole, with a creature crawling through." In the second event, "...the ranch owners had seen an opening in the sky inbroad daylight with a triangular craft that came through it." Dr. Davis then compared these observations with known wormhole physics. "...that's an example of data that indicates a wormhole involved. Geometry tells you what a wormhole looks like when itintersects our space. It appears as [an intensely bright] point of light and then, as the intersection gets larger and larger,it opens up and you begin to see the hole." At that point, he noted, objects could traverse the wormhole.

Discussing the matter of UFOs and warp drives, Dr. Davis stated that, "We haven't seen performances that adhere to the warpdrive because ...basically it's just between stars and we don'tsee UFOs warping anywhere. We see them doing ninety-degree turns and rapid motions. They disappear and reappear. That is undetermined yet."He finally commented on the matter of anti-gravity, "...we haveanti-gravity in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. ...There are aspects of anti-gravity, the properties of negative vacuum energy, that would create a repulsive force that allows something to levitate up. And UFOs do exhibit that."

In explaining how, he referred to Dr. Hal Puthoff's PolarizedVacuum Model where, "...instead of space-time [in traditional Relativity], you envision space-time as a polarized vacuum of a quantum zero point fluctuations. And, if you exert a field onthat medium, the fluctuations are polarized, [and] that creates a space-time bending effect similar to warp drive and wormholes. We see that in aspects of what's predicted."

The Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project was disbanded at NASA in 2002 due to funding shortfalls. Dr. Davis is now a research physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies-Austin, and is CEO of the company Warp Drive Metrics.

He is currently scheduled to speak at the 2013 MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) symposium.
 
Jospeh Farrell says the _real_ Maxwell equations allow for pumping energy in to the resonance between fields or something to warp space-time. Whatshisname from Skunkworks, "We can take ET home," said they fixed the equation. Bob Lazar says the strong nuclear force, the force binding neutrons and protons I guess in atomic nuclei, is actually a different kind of gravity that can be "accessed" and used to create warps in space-time, especially using heavy elements, some of which don't appear to exist naturally in this part of the universe. I don't think any of them have really come clean on the dirty real-life mechanics of it all. The lights becoming tunnels at Sherman _might_ be wormholes, but might be something else as well. What exactly, I couldn't say.
 
Very interesting!

Something about Nick Cook's "The Hunt For Zero Point" still haunts me way out of proportion to evidence Cook presents. In a supposed conversation with his "inside" source, he is told there may exist two tracks for science: the traditional stuff we are taught in school, and the "weird" stuff we are not. It's common knowledge in the physics departments of major universities that certain areas of inquiry are strictly off limits to inquiring minds. These need not contain anything so esoteric as antigrav. But the powers-that-be have indeed managed to sequester certain aspects of natural law as "dangerous" for at least as long as post WWII.

As Nobel laurate Robert Laughlin says--'Not only are there things I can not tell you. I cannot even tell you what I cannot tell you.'
 
Interesting topic, my curiousity is definitly piqued!

.."UFOs don'thave credibility with mainstream academic researchers," andthat, "...policy makers and decision-makers in charge of fundingand programatics ... don't want to hear the topic of UFOs. So,for the purpose of doing this officially, [we didn't bring inUFOs], but we did consider it under the table."Dr. Davis was a technical consultant to the NASA project....
Dang, there are some good talking points there for us UFO folks.

Albeit, it's a bit annoying hearing about creatures crawling through wormholes at Skinwalker, yet no nothing in terms of evidence. Since I'm always looking for red flags, this would be the one.

.. It's common knowledge in the physics departments of major universities that certain areas of inquiry are strictly off limits to inquiring minds. ..
Ok, I didn't know that, but then I only took introductory physics at college.

Could you eleaborate on what is 'strictly off limits to enquiring minds'? And is this an American phenomenon, or does it apply internationally? I know a PhD in astronomy who is very open to all sorts of talk, I wonder if he can corroborate your statement, if you give me a hint as to what we're talking about here?
 
Jimi, I would recommend Laughlin's book, "The Crime Of Reason", or podcasts in which he is interviewed about it. Laughlin notes a trend of increasing sequestration of valuable scientific knowledge, which he carefully differentiates from media "noise" which is largely about marketing.

He cites sequestered/classified knowledge as residing in 2 general categories: defense and proprietary. The most obvious in the former category are (I'm guessing) certain basic properties of materials used to build nukes. Although as Laughlin says, these are widely known to research physicists worldwide anyway. Most ironic and not realized by most people is the fact that, not only is it illegal to obtain knowledge about certain laws of nature from established sources. It is also illegal to come into such knowledge by virtue of open source research combined with personal deduction. Yes--If one is smart enough to have figured out certain things related to national defense or high dollar proprietary processes, it would behoove one to clam up about it !

Average dolts such as myself are not at risk. :confused:
 
...Most ironic and not realized by most people is the fact that, not only is it illegal to obtain knowledge about certain laws of nature from established sources. It is also illegal to come into such knowledge by virtue of open source research combined with personal deduction. Yes--If one is smart enough to have figured out certain things related to national defense or high dollar proprietary processes, it would behoove one to clam up about it !
Which might explain some of Ray Stanford's reluctance to splash the pool dry w/ his amazing deductions and expose his analysis to the public-at-large. I doubt most people would understand his work and the vast majority don't really have a need-to-know...
 
There are only two reasons I can think of to keep science secret:

1) to hide poor science from scrutiny by others
2) to hide really amazing science with obvious technological applications in order to maintain an advantage over those who don't know

Since 2) has been in force since Trinity (or Alameda if you prefer) and is the heart of the NPT regime, for example, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be applied all over the place with newer discoveries.

1) is more how the "intelligence community" operates, hiding crimes and total muck-ups under the seal of National Security.

As for speculation and open-source data mining being illegal, that might have some lawyering to back it up, but it's about like making it illegal to film police in public while they are given the right to film everyone in private: it's not law, because it violates the constitution ipso facto.

Another interesting point, to me at least, is about patents: it's not illegal to use other people's patents, that's what patents are for. But if you make money off them, you're supposed to kick some back to the patent filer. You aren't really allowed to copyright, trademark or patent mathematics or math discoveries, so if you figure out how to calculate prime numbers, for example, your method is automatically public domain no matter what you do. There is big money riding on ignoring this simple fact of law, which includes algorithms and thus all computer programs.

If there is "breakaway science" to any large degree, they sure won't be filing patents. Then again, maybe "dark patents" are more numerous in the universe than normal obvious public ones.

It seems to me the whole edifice is creaking and about to break under the weight of numerous contradictions, so I won't stop myself from speculating on the mass of plutonium needed to achieve critical mass (15 kgs?) and the use of fluorohexane gas in thermonuclear bombs, or from carrying out thought experiments on relativistic spin.
 
Laughlin makes the shrewd observation that scientists advance their careers by sharing what they know. Engineers largely advance their careers by hiding what they know. Not sure what the equivalent of the title "engineer" would be in biotech. But you get the idea. Heads of cutting edge R & D projects are somewhat leery of people like Laughlin who have the ability to piece together the overall picture. So control over sequestered research is largely exercised by a combination of allocation of funding and careful compartmentalization. And, of course, the Big Stick. This coming from a guy who has definitely been there.
 
Which might explain some of Ray Stanford's reluctance to splash the pool dry w/ his amazing deductions and expose his analysis to the public-at-large. I doubt most people would understand his work and the vast majority don't really have a need-to-know...

The only way that such a law would apply is if one knew that there was some technology e.g. a nuclear bomb, and then set about figuring the secrets of how it works out using open source research and deduction. However if you had no insider knowledge, and the government didn't admit to having such technology, there would be no way for you to know you were actually doing anything illegal ... and let's not confuse that with ignorance of the law, which is an entirely different concept. Essentially, getting arrested for breaking that law with respect to UFOs would be an admission that they have them, and probably cause those doing the arresting to come under scrutiny for disclosing secrets by way of proxy.

I'm still thinking Decker's "curmudgeon" theory on Ray is closer to the truth. Is there a way to test that theory? Yes. Next time you're over at Ray's place, try calling him a curmudgeon, and if he admits it you've got your answer, and if he kicks you out, you've also got your answer. How much of a curmudgeon he his can be measured by how long it takes for him to let you back in. If he threatens you with a shotgun ( or rock hammer ) and tells you to get off his property, then I'd say it would be a really serious case of curmudgeonitis - osis - ism ... whatever you call it.

NOTE: If you don't want the fall-out to land on you then get someone else to do it. Like take Decker with you and get him to do it. He might even enjoy it.
 
Jimi, I would recommend Laughlin's book, "The Crime Of Reason", or podcasts in which he is interviewed about it. Laughlin notes a trend of increasing sequestration of valuable scientific knowledge, which he carefully differentiates from media "noise" which is largely about marketing.

He cites sequestered/classified knowledge as residing in 2 general categories: defense and proprietary. The most obvious in the former category are (I'm guessing) certain basic properties of materials used to build nukes.
I heard about the nukes, I mean, keeeping the knowledge (and the materials) out of reach of dictators is a big international political issue!

I don't know any particle physicists, but it's not like particle physics is a taboo in modern science, so I'm guessing the problem is not too big, in reality ..?

Are there any other aspects of scientific theory that you can't discuss?
 
Back
Top