Transcription
Didn't we tell this 3 years ago that we kill people for this? Is she not listening? What is she doing? The NSA has a list of people that have independently discovered anti-gravity. It's been independently discovered four other times. He said, "It has been suppressed every single time." And he said, "I don't think they're going to suppress it this time." He said, "I think you're in the clear."
She is the 11th person on the recent list of scientists who disappeared or died under unusual circumstances. What you're about to see is something that was never supposed to reach you.
I found out that I was being physically surveilled. My ex-boyfriend and I realized that there's this weird Lexus in the parking lot and it has tinted windows that are not street legal, like just totally dark, totally black. And we're standing in our bedroom window looking at the Lexus and talking about it. Within 2 minutes of me saying, "Hey, we should walk over there later and take a picture of the license plate." We were still standing there at the window looking at it, talking about it. And an Eastern European looking with a black beanie dressed all in black walked out of the apartment directly across from ours holding a license plate. And he opened the trunk of the Lexus and he took out some tools and he changed the license plate right in front of our faces. And it was literally like, "Come get the license plate. I have more." And every time I saw the Lexus, it had a different license plate.
The other people on that list had connections to highly sensitive work linked to NASA, Los Alamos, and aerospace or military programs. Amy Esgridge was researching anti-gravity propulsion. She died in 2022. But before she died, she said something that is very hard to ignore.
So, the ultraterrestrials, I'll just tell you, have you heard of the P-52s? They're us from the future. P-52 is present plus 52,000 years. I know this may sound crazy, but Dan Burish, a scientist who worked inside Majestic 12, one of the most secretive alleged programs in US history, talked about the exact same thing.
The P45s, meaning they are from the future, 45,000 years ahead of 45,000 years ahead on a separate timeline than what we are presently on, a timeline that we could transition over to from where we are now. There are human beings of that many years ahead of us on another timeline coexisting in reality.
Alien kind by well they're they're humans. They're they're human. Consider them humans. They're humans.
Some sources say Amy was working on a propulsion system based on anti-gravity. Think about what this actually means for the world. The oil industry, the aerospace industry, defense contracts worth hundreds of billions of dollars. All of it built on one assumption that moving things through space costs enormous energy. A technology like that makes those industries obsolete. That's a very sensitive subject and Amy was right in the middle of it. She left behind a research presentation. This is one of the things she published before she died. I'm going to walk you through it carefully, step by step, because the details matter. The more you understand it, the more you realize why this field keeps attracting people who later disappear. So, please stay with me. Let's start with the basics. Gravity is a force. You feel it every second of your life. It pulls you towards the ground. It keeps the moon orbiting the earth. It keeps the earth orbiting the sun. Newton described it in 1686 with a simple formula. The closer two objects are, the stronger the pull between them. The more massive they are, the stronger the pull. That formula still works. We use it to calculate satellite trajectories right now today. But then Einstein came along in 1916 and said something that changed everything. He said gravity is not actually a force. It's a shape. When a massive object like Earth sits in space, it bends the fabric of space and time around it. Other objects don't get pulled toward Earth. They follow that curve that Earth creates. What we experience as gravity is just objects following the path of least resistance through a curved space. Two completely different explanations, both mathematically correct. And here's the problem. They don't fully agree with each other at the deepest level. That disagreement is not a minor academic detail. It means that our understanding of gravity has a hole in it. A real one. Physics has four fundamental forces. Three of them, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, have been unified into one framework called the standard model. Scientists understand these forces at the particle level. They know what carries them. Electromagnetism is carried by photons. The strong force is carried by gluons. The weak force is carried by W and Z bosons. Gravity has no confirmed particle carrier. The graviton is the theoretical particle that should carry gravity, but it has never been detected. Gravity sits completely outside the standard model. Nobody has managed to unify it with the other three forces, even though physicists have been trying for nearly a century. This is the unsolved problem that anti-gravity research sits inside. When Amy and researchers like her talk about anti-gravity, they're not talking about magic. The definition is precise. Reducing, cancelling, or protecting against the effect of gravity. That's it. Any method, any mechanism that achieves that result counts. And here's where the conversation becomes uncomfortable for certain industries. If you can reduce the effect of gravity on an object, even partially, you change the energy equation for moving that object. Every rocket ever built works by burning massive amounts of fuel to overcome gravity. The entire aerospace industry, the entire fuel supply chain behind it, every defense contract built on conventional propulsion, all of it assumes that fighting gravity is expensive, that it will always be expensive. Anti-gravity research is a direct challenge to that assumption.
Now, Amy didn't start this research from zero. She was studying a long history of people who tried to do exactly this before her. And what's interesting is the pattern. Someone makes progress. The research gets attention and then it disappears. The first serious attempt was in the 1920s. A researcher named Thomas Townzen Brown built a device he called the gravitator. He applied very high voltage electricity to a specially designed capacitor to electrodes of different sizes and claimed the device produced thrust without any moving parts. He called the effect electrogravitics. He tested it in a vacuum to rule out the possibility that it was just air movement causing the effect. He filed a patent in 1960. The results were never independently verified. Around the same time, Nicola Tesla filed a patent for what he described as a space drive. Patent number 1,655,144. Tesla believed that matter was made of wheels of ether, a substance that mainstream physics had already rejected by that point. He rejected Einstein's idea of curved spacetime entirely and proposed his own dynamic theory of gravity. His space drive was based on electromagnetic propulsion, what he called electropulsation. Tesla died in 1943. Most of his papers were seized by the US government immediately after his death. What happened to those papers is still not fully clear. In 1948, a businessman named Roger Babson founded the Gravity Research Foundation. Babson had lost a family member to drowning and became obsessed with the idea of shielding against gravity. His foundation offered annual prizes for serious gravity research. The prize was won over three years by Steven Hawking and five other scientists who later received Nobel prizes. This was not a fringe operation. Serious physicists engaged with it. In 1946, an inventor named John Searl claimed to have built a device that combined anti-gravity with free energy generation. He called it the S.E.A.L. effect generator. The scientific community largely dismissed it. Remarkably, people are still trying to build it today. Then came the Dean drive in the 1950s and 60s. Norman Dean claimed his device could produce propulsion without any exhaust, a reactionless drive. The mechanism used a linear oscillating system. The mainstream explanation is that the effect was caused by friction and would not function in free space, but the device attracted serious attention at the time, including from the US military. In 1968, an inventor named Henry Wallace filed patents for a machine built from spinning brass discs. His theory was that spinning material with a specific nuclear property, half integer nuclear spin, would align the nuclear spin of atoms and generate what he called a kinematic field, a gravitational field produced by motion. The patents exist. The effect was never publicly verified. And in 1974, a respected British engineer named Eric Laithwaite, the man who invented maglev train technology, presented gyroscope experiments to the Royal Institution in London. He claimed that a spinning gyroscope behaved in ways that suggested mechanical forces could change an object's apparent weight. The institution responded by removing him from their fellowship. His career never fully recovered.
Now, we get to the modern researchers, and this is where the story gets uncomfortable. In the 1990s, a physicist named Ning Li was working at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. She theorized that if you apply a magnetic field to a superconductor, it aligns the spin of ions inside the material. That alignment, she claimed, would produce a gravitomagnetic and gravitric effect, essentially a controllable gravitational field generated by electricity and magnetism. She collaborated with NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. In 1999, Popular Mechanics published an article about her work. Then she left the university and founded a private company called AC Gravity LLC. In 2001, she received a contract from the Department of Defense with nearly half a million dollars. After that, nothing. She simply disappeared from the public record. The Popular Mechanics article is no longer available online. People have been asking what happened to her for years. Nobody had a clear answer. In 2014, she was struck by a vehicle on campus. The accident caused permanent brain damage. She died a few years later. Many people online found this accident suspicious. Nobody can confirm anything. It could have been a simple accident, but who knows? Around the same time, a Russian researcher named Eugene Podkletnov was working in Finland at the University of Tampere. He claimed that a rotating superconducting disc produced a measurable shielding effect against gravity, a 2% reduction in the weight of objects placed above the disc. He collaborated with NASA. He filed a patent in 2001. The scientific community largely rejected his claims. The University of Tampere removed him. His collaborator, Giovanni Modanese, had his Wikipedia page deleted. However, a French researcher named Claude Poirier later produced results that partially replicated Podkletnov's findings. NASA tested Poirier's device at Marshall Space Flight Center in 2015. The results of that test have not been made public.
Now, here's something important that Amy specifically highlighted in her presentation. In 1973, the US Congress passed the Mansfield Amendment. This restricted the Department of Defense from funding research that had no direct military application. Anti-gravity research was included. This means that from 1973 onward, any serious government-funded anti-gravity research moved into one of two places: the private sector or classified black budgets. Public research on this topic effectively stopped. That context matters when you look at what came next.
In the 1990s, Jim Woodward, a physicist at California State University, proposed something called the Woodward effect. He theorized that rapid fluctuations in the energy of an object could produce a small but real thrust without any propellant. No fuel burned, no exhaust, just electricity applied to a specially designed device. He called it a reactionless thruster. His theory also suggested that a large enough concentration of negative mass could warp spacetime enough to enable a warp drive. NASA has tested versions of his device multiple times.
Then there is Boeing. In 2014, Boeing publicly admitted the existence of a program called GRASP, Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion. The program had been running inside Boeing's Phantom Works Division, which is their advanced research and development branch, the same division that works on classified military aircraft. The admitted goal of GRASP was to study Podkletnov's work and determine if it had real applications for propulsion. Think about that for a moment. One of the largest defense contractors in the world was quietly funding anti-gravity research and they only admitted it in 2014, years after the program had already been running.
There is also the TR-3B. This is a triangular aircraft that has been reported by multiple witnesses near military installations since the 1990s. Some researchers have claimed it is a real craft that uses a rotating plasma field to partially cancel gravity, reducing its effective weight and allowing conventional propulsion to move it with far less energy. The mechanism described is similar to what Brown proposed in the 1920s. No government has officially confirmed the TR-3B exists.
Then the US government declassified a series of documents connected to a Pentagon program called AATIP, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. This was a secret Pentagon program that ran between 2007 and 2012. The public only found out it existed in December 2017 after the program's director resigned and spoke to the press. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, the titles of 38 studies funded by the program were released. Here are some of them:
* Transversible Wormholes, Stargates, and Negative Energy, written by Dr. Eric Davis. This document explained the physical conditions needed to create a wormhole, a tunnel through spacetime that would allow instantaneous travel from one point to another. The conclusion was that keeping such a tunnel open requires negative energy, a form of energy that mainstream physics considers theoretical.
* Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions. This study analyzed the possibility of compressing space in front of a vehicle and expanding it behind, which would allow faster-than-light travel without violating the physics of relativity. The concept is called the Alcubierre drive, named after the Mexican physicist who proposed it in 1994.
* Anti-gravity for Aerospace Applications, a study dedicated entirely to the practical applications of anti-gravity in aviation and space travel.
* Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Vacuum Engineering. This document studied the possibility of extracting energy from the quantum vacuum from apparently empty space to propel vehicles.
These were official US government documents written by credentialed scientists funded by the Pentagon and kept away from the public for nearly a decade. The same government that publicly treated anti-gravity as science fiction was privately paying scientists to study wormholes, warp drives, and gravity manipulation. Have you noticed the pattern? Every researcher who made real progress in this field eventually disappeared from public view. The research stopped moving. The results went classified. And in some cases, they themselves were gone shortly after.
Now I will show you something that will change the way you see everything. So please stay with me. What comes next will open your eyes completely.
Literally there are two or more concurrent timelines that we're living in. I've got to be very careful with this. They were handing this cube around from country to country to the elitists in the countries to look into their own future so that they could pick the best paths for themselves.
It feels like he revealed more than he should have.
Those two time streams could occur simultaneously. Reality could be mixed, which is why there are so many confusing data sets.
Are you saying that you could look at something one day and measure it, and look at it the next day, and the measurements can be different because a different timeline has then come into play?
Yeah. All this information comes from inside Majestic 12, a top-secret US government group he says he was a part of. But here's the thing. He's not the only one talking about this. The American writer Philip K. Dick described the same idea.
We were reliving the present deja vu. Perhaps in precisely the same way, hearing the same words, saying the same words. I submit that these impressions are valid and significant. This too might account for the sensation people get of having lived past lives. They may well have, but not in the past, previous lives, rather in the present.
Physicist David Deutsch talks about it from a scientific angle.
There are other copies of you and of me in other universes. Some of them, some of these copies are completely identical to us. There are other universes which are very like this one but differ only in the position of one atom somewhere. Now, those universes are interfering with ours and they are producing interference effects, um, which we could detect in the laboratory if we wanted to.
And this is where it gets uncomfortable. Something doesn't seem right with reality because to this day no one can clearly explain why a large segment of the global population shares the same false memories. Memories of events, logos, movie lines, things they remember the same way but that don't match reality anymore. That alone should make you take this seriously.
They were still reticent about informing me as to what the real nature of the situation was, the actual potential for both timeline number one and timeline number two outcomes in the case that we're in right now. We seem to be in a variant of timeline one. It's not happening exactly the way that they figured that it would, but then again, it couldn't because we've made changes along the way which diverted us away from timeline number two.
When you really stop and think about the idea that things like this could be real, it gives you chills. At least it did for me. It reminded me of a real experiment done by psychologist Daryl Bem known as feeling the future.
The computer randomly selects a set of photographs to show you. And most of them are calm, neutral pictures. And every once in a while, there's an arousing picture. So the results is that the physiology of the participant shows higher arousal not just when the picture appears, which you would expect, but a few seconds before the computer shows the arousing pictures, even before the computer decides which picture to show.
In Bem's experiment, nothing was predicted in advance. The choices were random, and yet the body reacted as if it already had access to what was about to happen. What comes next brings us back to something mentioned at the very beginning of this video. That cube elites use to alter their future. Did you have exposure to that black box?
It was it was something that we called the cube or the yellow disc or yellow cube. Yes.
Okay. But then that was not looking.
Was that a looking glass?
That is a variant of the technology.
However, whilst the looking glass shows probabilities or has shown probabilities, the cube would react with the people present. So there was an alteration, if you will, over what you were seeing from it. It would actually spin out as a yellow disc out of the top of it where the word yellow book originally came from.
Uh, and depending upon what predisposition, it's kind of like little Yoda telling young Luke, you bring in there what you have with you. You know, whatever is in there is what you bring. You could then change the perspective, the tilt, if you will, the orientation or angle of the information being presented back to you. So unless you are well prepared to deal with such a thing, human interaction and human emotions bring instability of the provenance of the information.
Okay. That's what went on with the black box, you're saying.
Yes. And I, I actually I use that to our advantage at the T9.
At this point, I think it's important to step back and look at this from the outside. The idea of something like looking glass didn't appear out of nowhere. For decades, governments and research institutions have been obsessed with one question: Can complex systems be modeled far enough ahead to understand where they're heading? We already do this in limited ways: weather models, economic forecasts, military simulations. None of them predict the future with certainty. They map ranges of probability based on inputs and assumptions. What makes this different is the claim that those probabilities could be explored more directly, not just as numbers on a screen, but as something you could interact with, compare, and adjust. That's where things stop sounding theoretical and start sounding uncomfortable. Because once you move beyond observation and into interaction, you're no longer just asking what might happen. You're asking whether the act of observing and adjusting could influence which outcome becomes real.
The looking glass has an ability to show one the future. Let's say that one has the looking glass and you're saying it shows probabilities. And one of the things we were wondering is how does it do that?
The rings and the amount of information via energy which is passed into it. And I've got to be very careful with this. The position of the rings, their orientation, the energy running through them, position of the barrel, etc. Because you can raise the barrel up on an armature inside the center of it. All come into play as if you have an onion with the various layers of the onion. As you move through the different energy levels, you also move through the different layers. So you get different bits of information. Now imagine an almost infinite number of layers overlaid in comparison to the positions of the rings and amount and an almost infinite amount of energy that you can add or subtract. Tuning it up, tuning it down.
Well, it sounds...
Instead of going up by one hertz or by two hertz, maybe by a thousandth of a hertz up and down. But it sounds like you're working with a coll almost like a kaleidoscope effect, you know, like a kaleidoscope. A real kaleidoscope. The way you would turn and twist and focus, and each time you get a different design, right?
Well, right. Except, except...
The colors are changed.
Yeah. You get a you get a different design and the colors change. But it's like working with multiple kaleidoscopes where when you fit, when you find two different probabilities that you would run into, you have two kaleidoscopes and you make a change on one kaleidoscope that may factor or function to a different angular change on another kaleidoscope. So you get two separate pictures that you then have that are flashing back and forth.
Okay.
But yes.
Okay. Let me simplify what he's actually describing here. He's saying that what they were seeing wasn't one clear outcome, but multiple possible outcomes appearing at the same time, almost like different versions of the same event overlapping. So instead of guessing which one is real, they tried to separate them visually frame by frame. They would break the image apart, look at each version individually, and then measure how often each one appeared. The idea was simple: the version that showed up more often was treated as more likely to happen. Then over time, they would compare what they saw with what actually happened later. And by doing that repeatedly, they believed they could refine the system not to predict the future perfectly, but to estimate which outcome had a higher chance of becoming real. And this is where another name comes into the conversation. Some of you may have heard it before: Stargate. Over the years, several people have spoken publicly about a project associated with that name, each from their own perspective, each describing different aspects of it.
A Stargate or equipment that accesses a Stargate or wormhole is for time travel, right? We're talking about two different things. Are they using the same technology?
Essentially, yes. The original device was the Stargate device that was then increased in power, if you will, with the use of these field posts. The looking glass device was a back-engineered Stargate. So it was actually back-engineered from the original cylinder seal data which allowed us to produce the Stargate access devices, if you will, what we call the Stargates. We should have never built the Stargate. Yes. Okay. For for the purpose of speaking with the visitors from the other timelines. Yes. Absolutely. The looking glass. No.
When people talk about Stargate as a device, they're usually talking about something very different from what we see in movies. The idea is that some places on Earth are already unusual. Places where the environment feels different, where energy, space, or even time doesn't behave the same way it does everywhere else. According to several people who spoke about this over the years, these places already existed in nature. The device wasn't meant to create anything new, but to work with what was already there. Think of it like this: if there's a river underground, the device doesn't create the river. It just helps you access it. In these accounts, the Stargate device worked like a tool. It helped focus energy or conditions in a specific place so that access became possible. That's why location was so important. The same setup wouldn't work everywhere. It had to be used in the right place. People described this technology as allowing movement through space and time, but not in a simple or casual way. It wasn't like stepping through a door and going anywhere you want. It was more like following certain paths that already existed. That's why the idea of Stargate is often linked to specific sites, not random locations. The environment itself was part of the system. And this isn't a new idea. Throughout history, different cultures talked about specific places on Earth as being different. Locations where something felt off, where navigation, perception, or even time itself didn't behave the same way. For a long time, those stories were dismissed as myths or symbolism. But modern science does acknowledge that certain regions of the planet have unusual electromagnetic properties, areas where signals behave differently, where instruments act strangely. So when I hear claims about devices needing specific locations or being more effective in certain places, I don't immediately think of science fiction. I think about geography, physics, and how little we understand about the environment around us.
There are a number of nodes on the planet from what I'm understanding that naturally are sensitive electromagnetically. I don't know. Okay. They're naturally sensitive to the space through which we pass.
Okay.
These nodes activate spontaneously when we pass through them or can be struck with electromagnetism and be temporarily opened. Now, haven't you been investigating a site where there is a natural...
Indeed. Frenchman?
Frenchman Mountain, and your work continues on Frenchman.
Yes, it does. Yes, it does.
When you step outside these interviews and look at the broader picture, this idea doesn't exist in isolation. For decades, governments and research institutions have quietly mapped unusual locations on the planet. Places where signals weaken, where navigation behaves oddly, where instruments don't always respond as expected. Not because of portals or theories like these, but because those areas matter strategically. Pilots have reported regions where compasses drift. Military engineers have documented zones where communication systems lose accuracy. Geologists study areas where the Earth's magnetic field behaves differently than the surrounding regions. Most of the time, these places are explained in practical terms: geology, minerals, underground structures, electromagnetic interference. But what's interesting is that these locations tend to appear in clusters, not randomly scattered. That's where the scale starts to change the conversation. Because once you move from the idea of a single site to patterns across different regions, the question stops being "Does this place exist?" and becomes something else entirely: "How many places like this are there? How many have been identified, mapped, or quietly monitored over time?" At that point, the topic stops being about one mountain or one location. It becomes about a broader network spread across different countries, different environments, different conditions. And that's where this discussion leads next.
Are we able to know how many man-made Stargates there were on the planet?
Uh, no. I'm I'm not going to comment as to the the total. I will say that there was over 50.
Really?
Yeah. Wow. In different countries of the world.
Yes.
Okay. And these are man-made.
Yes.
Okay. So, and...
These are Well, see, it's not a Stargate. It's a It's a device which accesses Okay.
Which accesses a a portal, a wormhole.
It accesses a natural, in other words, the man-made device accesses a natural Stargate.
It draws off from a natural ERB, an Einstein-Rosen Bridge.
Okay. It accesses it and somehow works, uh, from what I understand, not in parallel, but almost like piggybacks on the on the energy of the natural starky.
You're saying you don't want to use the looking glass for advantage over country to country. But what about country to country?
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. It shouldn't be used at all.
I understand. But...
All right.
But is there something there? I mean, in in other words, is this technology something that they are using now to look at our relationships with? Because they...
The technology is not being used at all right now.
Okay. And but the reason it's not used now is because of where we're going into the galactic, the plane of the...
As of about 2017, I would expect probably that all of these little pieces of equipment will probably all get reassembled. Yeah.
Turned back on.
Oh, sure. 2017. That's quite a long way.
2016, 2017.
Not until then.
Probably not.
I, I, I'm figuring that they're probably gonna act conservatively on this. That's what all of the people of wisdom have suggested to them.
Oh, wow.
Is to act conservatively.
He says that what they were looking at wasn't a single event, but part of a much larger cycle. The idea is that history doesn't move in a straight line. It moves in long cycles that repeat over very long periods of time. Not years or decades, but tens of thousands of years. Inside those long cycles, there are shorter phases when major changes tend to happen. The time window he mentions, roughly from the 1990s to around 2012 and possibly extending to 2016, wasn't described as a fixed deadline. It was more like a rough zone inside that larger cycle where things begin to shift. He also makes an important point about scale. When you're dealing with timelines that stretch 45,000 or even 50,000 years, being off by a few years doesn't really matter. From that distance, time looks blurred. A decade can disappear inside the margin of error. That's why he compares it to our own history. We still argue about what really happened just 2,000 years ago, even with written records. So, trying to interpret information that comes from tens of thousands of years away becomes extremely difficult.
It's very wise for them to wait.
Okay. And you mean the looking glasses are now decommissioned, but also the Stargate technology.
Yeah, they're decommissioned. And the Stargates and the Looking Glasses, I'm sure they're all in their little mothball containers and all of that. And they have been separated. The three components of each have been separated and moved to different power structures, diplomatic and military authorities on the world, in the world. And we're talking about the EU specifically, the UN, and NATO. Those are are in specific control of one of the three components each, and I cannot comment as to which component is contained by whom.
After hearing all of this, I think the most important thing isn't deciding what's true or what isn't. It's noticing the pattern. Different people, different times, different angles, all circulating around the same ideas: probabilities, cycles, locations, access, not as answers, but as questions that keep coming back. And maybe that's the point. Because whether these systems exist exactly as described or not, the fact that so much attention has been given to them says something about how humans think about the future. Not as something fixed, but as something shaped by choices, conditions, and timing. I'm not here to tell you what to believe. I just wanted to put all these pieces on the table and let you look at them together. So that's it for today's.