Spellbreakers Ep.163: Was Amy Eskridge Murdered for Her Antigravity Research?

The badlands, you're on the badlands, explain those badlands, that's a hell of a name.

See, what do we want to do? We want to hide that and make myself a little bit bigger for now

and say hello to everybody. Say hello to you in the chat here in a minute.

But first we're going to have, we're going to mention our wonderful sponsors tonight.

Episode of Spell Breakthroughs is brought to you in part by River. We love River. River is a great sponsor.

There are Bitcoin sponsors and I don't know if they're the official Bitcoin provider of badlands,

that's probably extra, but they might as well be. We love them. They're so great. If you have any

interest in Bitcoin, you should pay attention to what we're doing right here. But let's see,

why don't we all have interest in Bitcoin? Feel free to ad live or eat current Bitcoin prices.

I don't know what the current Bitcoin prices are, but stack sats with River, the Bitcoin only platform

built by Bitcoiners for Bitcoiners. Why River? Zero fee recurring buys stack Bitcoin effortlessly,

hourly, daily, weekly or monthly, 3.5% Bitcoin interest on cash, FDIC insured, no minimums,

withdraw any time, expert US based support, human help plus private client services for big buys,

$100,000 plus business accounts boost your balance sheet with Bitcoin at 3.5% on BTC. That's

bit stock symbol for Bitcoin. Top tier wallets, send receive and manage Bitcoin securely, unmatched

security, full reserve custody, multi sig, cold storage, and proof of reserves. All those are

things you want. Join the Bitcoin revolution at badmansmedia.tv slash river and earn real returns.

That's badlandsmedia.tv slash river. All right. And we're also sponsored by our friends at Van

Man. We love Van Man too. Van Man, there's a logo. It's a van. It looks like a family when we first

went out to Colorado in our VW van in 1978. Van Man's pure cooking talent, ready to upgrade your daily

routine with truly clean natural products, no exceptions. Start in the kitchen with Van Man's

pure cooking talent, perfect for high heat cooking and adding rich, clean flavor to your meals.

For your daily clients, try their gentle talo soups, the classic honey, pine tar or coconut,

these bars deliver a rich natural flavor. What leaves your skin feeling clean, soft and refreshed,

give your smile real care with miracles to powder and flavors like mint bone,

sip of own and original customers rave about their wider, stronger teeth and fresher breath

with no harsh chemicals. Van Man also offers great products like air care,

eye cream and more, all made with clean, natural ingredients, no exceptions. Right now,

enjoy free US shipping on all orders above $40. Head to badlandsmedia.tv slash van man today.

That's badlandsmedia.tv slash van man. Good evening, everybody. Good evening.

Check out the chat. How are we doing over here? Oh, we've got a lot of people here.

Love seeing all my favorite. Get in the van, man. Says Sammy the squirrel.

Sammy, I read your message here, your private message today about your prognosis and your condition.

And it was sad to read some of the downer things you were saying about your health and

all I can say is still praying for you. And I know that a year ago, they gave you a pretty

short time frame and that you've already outlived that. So maybe you're going to,

maybe you're going to be longer than they say, you know, I hope so. But, you know, we all,

we all have to face the same end. So it's not like I want to sit here and say everybody's going

to be okay because I don't know that. Wish I knew that, but I don't know that.

But here we all are. Here we all together. We're all alive for the moment.

And I don't know about you. I had a pretty good week. I was really tuned out of a lot of stuff

this week. It's not like I've tuned out of the news. I was tuned out of a lot of stuff on

Badlands. I barely saw anybody else's show this week. And that was sort of on purpose.

I've been sort of in a little bit of a retreat. It's like I needed to rethink some things in my life

about some of the goals and plans I'm at. And maybe it has to do with the current

world situation. You know, it's, it feels like it feels like everything's in motion right now,

doesn't it? It feels like it, you know, for so long, we was like when are any, when is anything

going to happen? And it feels like things are happening. And not all at once, but maybe it's

going to happen all at once. We get the feeling like next month. So many things could be different

than they are right now. And that can be stressful even if we can't anticipate the changes

will be good. And they're what we want, right? So I've been taking the last few days to really

reflect on a lot of things. And what, where do I want to go with my life at this point in my,

in my life? And, you know, we all need to do that from time to time. And this week's show is a

little bit sort of along those lines a little bit. This week I, I had a bunch of things that I

thought I was going to go at the beginning of the week. At the beginning of the week, I started

to plan out, started to plan out the show for this week. And I started out with the theme that

that, well, Prince, Prince Charles, King Charles, Charles III is coming to make a state visit to

America tomorrow, just in time for the 250th birthday. And, well, why is he doing that? Well, I think

that I was focusing on the aspect because I want to, I've been trying to wrap my mind around this,

the idea that he's basically coming here to beg for the British Empire, which is on its,

which is on its last legs. That the war that we're having right now, Trump's whole struggle has

been to defeat our long enemy, which is the British Empire, except not the way you think of the

British Empire, you know, from old days. We have in our idea that the, that an empire, you know,

when you think of an empire, when you think of the British Empire, any kind of empire,

you're thinking, well, there's this power center, a city, or a nation, and it has a

gemony over over a bunch of other nations and controls it by conquest and controls it and governs

it. And that's, that's what an empire is, you know, like if you, like, you know, my mind leaps to the,

to the game that civilization said, my civilization, which is, I think the last game I played on a,

I played it on it, on the on the Mac, and that was maybe coming up on 30 years ago that I did that.

I played it, I played it as the Americans, like the Americans, and my identity was very gold

water, so, and I eventually beat the game and colonized other planets in the spaceship, very gold

water. I didn't live in Arizona, now I live in Arizona at the time now, and so maybe it came true,

I don't know, but that's the last game I played, and that was a long time ago, but the idea was,

you know, you have an empire, you have to conquer other places, and, and so if you think of the

British Empire that way, you know, you're, you're thinking of it, but really it's about, it's about

not having land anymore. Land governing other nations is a burden now, that's the last thing you

want is to have to worry about governing other nations. But here we are in America, and, and there's

a system still going on that is still the British Imperial system. It has nothing to do with the

British people anymore. The British people are an afterthought, they themselves are a burden

to the British Empire, which is why they're trying to liquidate, liquidate England and get rid

of the English people and replace them. They don't need them anymore, once they needed them,

they don't need them anymore, just like they don't need us anymore. So I thought I was going to do a

show about that, but, and, and I read some articles, uh, vivify, uh, Mariposa, do you know who that is?

I, I found that that really good sub-stack. Sure, going wide the British Empire still exists,

and why we're still part of the Imperial system. Um, there was really enlightening, but then I want,

then halfway through the week, I noticed that there was this, these things with these scientists

that have, that have died and gone missing, started to catch my attention. I realized that,

you know, this was becoming a thing that everybody was talking about, like Tim Poole was talking about

it, and, uh, you know, what's his name with the beard, Matt Walsh made a show about it, and then

in the White House press room, they were talking about it. It's like, what, what is, what's going on here?

So, you know, it was just a couple of weeks ago that we were talking about science and murder.

We were talking about whether, whether one of the, you know, whether, one of the cold fusion guys

was killed. One of the, you know, what, what is his name? The guy who wrote that book now,

escapes me. I was just watching a video interview with him, the cold fusion guy, wrote one of the

books about it, not one of the, not, not ponds and freshmen. Um, but, and he, and he had been killed,

and then, and then this happened. All of a sudden, everybody's talking about this,

and the thing that really sort of caught my attention was that the person, the person's death

who really put it over the edge, it seems like it really made it something that all of a sudden,

everybody was talking about this, was this young woman, Amy Eskridge, Amy Eskridge.

Really, it was like, you know, there were 10 scientists working in these exotic technologies,

and they've been killed or they're missing, and now there's 11, and they said, oh, she's the 11th one.

That's how it originally came, saw it in the news, but as if you know anything about this,

you know that this is not really news, um, that she is really, she's really, uh, where's,

we go here. Got my slides. Here we go.

Let's share this slide here.

The tragic death of Amy Eskridge, so that's not the exact title I used for the show.

So there she is, young woman. So she died four years ago, and that just made it even

weird to me, that somebody who died four years ago, became the catalyst for all of a sudden

talking about these missing scientists. And so people have been, it seems like everybody online,

it's talking about it. And I feel like I'm the last one, just, you know, to finally get around.

But we were talking about it before, right? Just a few weeks ago, we were talking about the guy

who was killed for his, not for his supposedly, he was just killed by some people who were tenets

of his parents. What is his name? I know this. I've got his kindle book, let me see. I can bring

up this kindle book. Fire in ice. Eugene Mallow. Eugene Mallow. There we go. That's it.

The guy who wrote fire, fire from ice, searching for the truth behind cold fusion fear. And he was

sort of instrumental in keeping the cold fusion flame live, if you will, around 25 years ago.

Benny was murdered. And so, under weird circumstances, and we've had other fusion researchers killed,

too. And so if you want to think of the scientists that have been killed, you get people in fusion,

or energy research, and then possibly an anti-gravity research, which is where we're aimed,

this person Amy Estridge comes in. So I did a show on, on, on anti-gravity last year, where I just,

I had to start to wrap my mind around what even are the claims. And so in a way, we're going to come

back to some of those tonight, because I wanted to know, is this, does this have legs that she was

maybe murdered for because of technological research? And I'll just tell you my opinion right

right in a moment here. But first, I want to go to the chat and just say hi to my

assistant, hi to friend Sammy. Interesting things in Virginia this week, that I know Sammy lives in

Virginia. And the most interesting thing, you know, with this election with these representatives.

So Steve Turley made a video, I thought was very interesting, about how Donald Trump may have the

power to write an executive order that would force the district of Columbia to take Arlington County

back. So if you know anything about the district of Columbia, it was created as a 10 by 10 square

with land from Virginia and Maryland in the 1840s. But that, I think under James Knox Polk,

made an executive order that took the Virginia part back into Virginia. So only the Maryland part

remained in the DC. But the part that's in Virginia now is really super, super blue. And

but it turns out, Steve Turley was arguing this, that there's actually precedent for this

constitutionally, William Howard Tatt was thought about this constitutional grounds, that the original

law says that this is supposed to be a perpetual seat of government. The way DC was originally defined

and that it was unconstitutional, taking that back into Virginia. So that maybe it might be possible

to force for the DC to take back Arlington County from Virginia, which would take a lot of votes

back, a lot of democratic federal worker votes back into DC. I don't know if that has legs,

but it's just such an interesting idea. It would make Virginia probably a red state again,

pretty solid red state again. If they could take Fairfax County, it'd be a definite bit.

Anyway, I thought about you, Sammy, thinking about that, because I know that you have to live in

that state, it's sort of become oppressive. Hello, Mrs. Rhea Freedom Fighter. Hello,

Eleanor 2000. Good to see all of you. Hello, Shysler. Yes. Hello, everybody.

AOB 22. Great to see you. Hello to you all. Raw shark lives. Yes, party time. Yeah, we're here.

Katie Rose 23. Good to see you. Good to see you.

What else we got here? ND Patriot 83. Clare Cat 367.

Tithos. Good evening, Patriots. We cannot see you.

Okay, all right. I think you can see me now, though, right?

Probably. Okay. All right. Jessica Storm.

Looking forward to hearing about Amy tonight. Yeah, you give me a fire on my topic tonight.

So yeah, we're going to talk about her, because I think she's, yeah, the unfortunate young woman.

And see who else we see. Fontays. Yes, man, 19.

NW ZBM. Good to see you. Good to see you. LM Turner. One. Good to see you.

So many people in the UFO community have disappeared. Yeah, so we had the guy in

Nitterland, Colorado, that so Jordan or Jordan Sather wrote just wrote a substack about him.

He knew him. And basically saying, you know, David Wilcox, I think it was. I'm going to mention

that. Vivify Mariposa substack in under 2000. Yeah, I really, really highly rate that.

It's like I started to read one article and it was so thick with information that it sort of

blew my mind. Send me this world. Yeah, a lot of people passed away recently, Eric Vendonekin.

Yeah, he was pretty old. So you lived, if you lived a long life, GA Nana 17, Greece Monkey 56.

Yeah, I think it was David, David Wilcox. Yeah,

yeah. So squish the thumbs up. Yes, please. Yeah. So let's talk about Amy. Let's talk about her.

So I'm just going to tell you right off the bat. It doesn't make sense to me that she was murdered

for any kind of research about anti-gravity. And I'll get to it in a moment. I'll get to the

why in a moment because I don't know her. I didn't know her. Obviously she's four years dead. I

didn't know her in life. I didn't know anything about her. I don't really know much about her.

But I decided how can I, how can I come to a good conclusion about this? So what I decided to do,

I watched a lot of, you know, a lot of stuff was coming through X about her. And a lot of stuff

to watch, a lot of stuff to read. Like how can I sort through this? Using my slant as a physicist

and having done a little bit of research about anti-gravity, I did. Well, I came across a lecture

that she did that she must have done. Well, at least no later than 2018, I don't know when the

lecture was done. It's about a 40 minute lecture and it's on YouTube. I actually put the link

to it in the in the static chat of this show. And I went and watched it. This was my research

about Amy Eskridge. I'm going to honor her by looking at her work, her work. So she, you know,

anti-gravity researcher, dead, maybe by self-deletion, as they say. We're on YouTube. So you're not

supposed to say certain words. You know, so I guess I got to respect that just for it. So we don't get

dinged, you know. So I got here. All right. Just wanted to check. Make sure we're still broadcasting.

What could I do to really to dig into the anti-gravity thing, which would be to honor her. She was

definitely into the research of anti-gravity. We can say that for certain. She lived in Huntsville,

Alabama, and she went to the University of Alabama, Huntsville, which is one of the places for that

kind of research and for rocketry and space science in general. I see online. Sometimes I see

on X, you know, you get people in Europe. They're like, you know, we're, you know, oh, you've

America, like look at Alabama. Everybody's married to their cousin and they're so stupid. I'm like,

Alabama. Alabama is like where we did the science to send people to the moon. So, you know,

go to hell, you know. That's what I want to say. You know, you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't know what you're talking about. So this woman, so what I did was I watched the 40 minute,

the 40 minute, so let's talk a little bit. Just give you a sense of it. It's not very well recorded.

I do recommend it if you're if you're interested in learning about her. So I watched it. I watched

it today. So we have a rumble rant. So Higgins, if they are snatching up our brilliant minds, Matt,

you may want to get an apple air tag for your prison wallet when you go outside. You know,

I think they'd have to get, they probably have to get far down the list to get to me.

But maybe I'm going to increase, if I keep talking about anti-gravity, maybe I'll go up the rankings.

So let's talk about Mimi, though, because, you know, there was something to her. I can't help but

not like her. I think that and and and and if she had a tragic end, you know, there's this,

you know, I did know that that supposedly before she died, so supposedly she shot herself in the head.

That's the official thing, which is unusual for a woman to to self-delete.

That way, but it's not unprecedented, I guess. But the, you know, they everybody,

one thing I did notice is they, well, she told a friend shortly before that that she was,

there's no way she was going to, she was going to self-delete. And you hear that a lot of times

from people who are who are found dead under mysterious circumstances that might be

that might be having taken their own life. That they, it's like, oh, they said that they're,

that they're, they're perfectly good health and they're not going to, they're not going to do that.

You hear that a lot, right? You've heard that. And supposedly she said that too. And I'll just say that,

that so one of my family members was a psychologist who told me that, you know, that if you say that,

if you say that, and you make that declaration publicly, I have no intent to, you know, whatever,

that basically, you know what she said, what one hears as a mental health professional,

you know, when a mental health professor hears somebody say that, they're, they're hearing that

that person has, has suicidal ideation and is actually thinking about doing that. That's what they

hear. Now that night might, that might be wrong in principle. It might be wrong as a matter of fact,

but that's what, you know, it's like, oh, well, that's evidence that they did actually do it.

So whenever I hear somebody say that, I sort of cringe, because it actually serves the opposite

purpose to in a lot of the discourse. So it's like, no, don't, don't, don't, don't say that.

Don't say that. So I guess that's just my two cents. I, I'm not a mental health professional.

I don't know anything. So let's talk about it though. So, you know, where we got, I've got her,

I've got that, that video by her. I want to watch a little bit of it. It's, it's taped and I think

it's good because she goes through in this, in this short thing, she goes through a lot of the

background about anti-gravity research. It's actually a pretty good introduction to the state of

anti-gravity research as it exists right now to the extent that there is anti-gravity use.

I think that there is. And, and I think she draws some attention to some very important points in

this. So let's, let's see if we can look at that. Let's remove that and let's add to this, no,

remove that. Okay. You can do that.

Leave studio, no, we don't want that. Okay, there we go. Share screen.

I'm going to Chrome tab. All right. All right. So this is, like I said, I put the link to this

down in the chat. So I said, I'm going to, this is how I'll, I'll honor the Amy S. Bridge. I'm

going to, I'm going to actually watch the lecture. I'm going to learn something, I thought, okay,

so this is, this Greg Allison, this is his channel that he did this. And I think that, so basically

the lecture, it's got some intro by this guy. And we'll just skip that. It's cool, dude, but

we're going to skip right to her Amy. Let's introduce Amy. Talk and buckle up. It's going to get

interesting. Okay, so that's her and the outline. And like I said, this is not shot very well.

It's shot by somebody using a phone and they whip the phone around a lot. And it's sometimes

hard to read the slides. I had to slow it all down because I was trying to take as many notes as

possible because I'm like, you know what, I'm going to learn about anti-gravity from Amy.

I think I think that that would be, that would be cool, right? She's going to teach me about it.

And while watching it, I'm going to try to make an evaluation about her as an anti-gravity researcher.

What does that mean? When people say that, what does that mean about her?

So that's what I tried to do. And it was very fruitful. It was a good afternoon. I learned a lot

about anti-gravity. So let's more than I did. More than I did when I was, when I was, when I did

the show last year about this. I almost felt bad about that show last year. It's like, what was I

doing doing a show about that? But now I'm really glad I did. Because it gives me, it's, it's, when

anything in physics, you have to, you have to approach things with multiple passes. You have to

learn stuff and then it doesn't make sense to you and then you have to make another pass at it

and it makes sense, much better sense the second time. So watching your lecture this time, I was able to

draw on my previous sort of half attempts to learn about all this and it was, it turned out to be

pretty fruitful because I was able to just, you know, if, if you know anything, if you got something

to sort of peg to hang something on when you're trying to learn anything in physics, it always

worked out much better. All right. CBM, oh, there are a lot of up and he arrogant and ignorant

Europeans. Some actually believe they know more about the US than most of our all Americans.

One even said, I kid you not Americans are culturally isolated. Yeah. Yeah. I was, I've been on a,

on an anti-European thing lately a little bit. I have a couple of friends in Europe and they're all

like, they all want me to know how much they don't like Trump. And like, you know what? I just don't

give what any Europeans have to say right now. I just don't. It's like, just shut up. You know,

I've had it for a while. I've had it with up at a Europeans. You know, I don't mind them having

their, they're having their opinions. I don't care if they like Donald Trump or not. That's not

it. The point is that they often give their opinions as if, as an American, I'm supposed to sit at

their feet and honor their cultural experience. In a way, I'd love to do if they weren't trying to

dismantle their entire civilization and culture. And you know, what is Europe good at at killing

themselves and destroying Europe? That's what they seem to be good at and proven at that. And so it's

just that arrogance. Yeah. So I agree with you, ZBM. You know, I got it. It fires up my patriotism

a little bit. My Americanism. Except for, except for Victor Orban and Ungarians, which I talked

about last week. All right. And the polls too a little bit. Sometimes I have a, I Polish friend

these anti-Trump. So I still love him though. All right. Let's watch Amy. Let's, let's, let's have

a listen to Amy. Okay. All right. Here we go. Someone tabs open. Okay. So here she is. I'm going to

stop the video a lot to comment. She's going to start off talking about just giving a basic

background on gravity. And we'll just, we'll just hear her a little bit.

The physical force interacts between different masses over both long and short diseases.

It's important for the planets and those are all things we've heard before. And the anti-gravity is

basically the, the science of modifying gravity. So anti-gravity is kind of the summer. It's really more

gravity modification. Okay. That's interesting that it's not anti-gravity. We're not talking about

an anti-gravitational force. We're talking about gravity modification. And I think she makes a good

important point there. But I think you could see right from the beginning. She's very charismatic.

She's pretty. She's got, and, and she's a nice person to listen to. And I took, like I said, a ton of

notes over this 40 minutes. And so we'll just skip around a few things. She talks here about

beginning about anti. It's not so interesting here. She goes up through Einstein, talks about

background Newton and all this, talks about unified field theory. But let's get to the anti.

Okay. Anti-gravity research the early days. I love, I like historical surveys of scientific

materials when I'm trying to learn something. And this endeared me, this endeared her to me,

and so let's just listen. I hope you can hear this. The sound's not that good.

So one of the earliest anti-gravity machines that were, it was kind of the board, was the

Thomas Thompson Browns, Browns generator, Browns Gravitator. Gravitator. So the Gravitator.

So she's going to go through historically here. I didn't know about Browns Gravitator. So he coined

the term electro-gravitics. And it's basically a type of a capacitor, not a flux capacitor,

like in back to the future, but a type of capacitor. And it's supposedly by doing that,

I'm not quite sure what this does. She doesn't quite explain what this supposedly did.

But it's, I like it when I can actually, she can actually get into the details of,

when anybody actually gets into the details of this is how you would build this.

So not quite sure what this does. This doesn't, it didn't seem like it was that of important

thing. And then it goes on to Nikola Tesla. She mentions, of course, we've got a Tesla,

Tesla space drive, an anti-electromagnetic propulsion, electro pulsation. So we, there's

a couple things I've noticed with, with the gravity modification, if you will, which is that there's

often two things happening at once with this subject, which is one is that there is truly like

levitation type of thing, where we're trying to make something that's that defies gravity, if you will.

And then there's also this idea of very fast travel, even lateral travel, that somehow through

a similar or the same mechanisms as gravity modification, you can also make things that can travel

in almost an instantaneous fashion and zip around, like, like UFOs are supposedly observed to do.

And those two things seem to go together a lot, even though to me in my mind as a physicist,

I'm like, well, those could be two different things entirely if they do exist.

But, but this, I don't know if it's just that the same people are interested in both of them,

or whether the technology overlaps, but she does make and she's going to make a couple of important

points that I want to highlight here coming up here. So this is a book supposedly about Tesla.

You always got to have Tesla in there. I don't know a lot about Tesla's work in this, or if it

holds water at all. A lot of people are really, if Tesla said something, it might as well have been

ended from God himself, you know. Then there's this. So I remember, I talked about this last year,

there was 1948, let's hear her talk about it. The Gravity Research Foundation, which was a private

foundation founded in 1948, with the idea of promoting research into gravity modification,

this very subject. And it was a private foundation, I think it was founded in New Hampshire,

I was trying to remember it last week. And so, and they handed out a prize every year for an essay.

And I guess she's got Stephen Hawking's when she says it's, of course, that's wrong. It's Stephen

just Stephen Hawking. He started a annual essay prize where he would write an essay on gravity

and then he would give, I think it was like a $4,000 prize at the time. And that prize has been won

by many famous scientists. Stephen Hawking's is one of the five little prize winners of one of the

absent prize. Some of those essays are sort of, ah, here we, she's got a quote here. Let me read it,

critical commentary. This is by one of the guys who won the one the prize back in 1953. Before

anyone can have the audacity to formulate even the most rudimentary plan of attack on the problem

of harnessing the force of gravitation, he must understand the nature of his adversary.

I take it as most axiomatic that the phenomenon of gravitation is poorly understood,

even in the best of minds. And the last word on it is very far from, from having been spoken,

okay, I'm leaving that a little bit because I can't read it. And this was written in 1953 for this

foundation essay, the winning essay. And it was written by a guy that I want to, somebody I know,

one of my teachers. Stephen Hawking's is one of them five little prize winners of one of the absent

prize. Some of those essays are sort of in favor of an anti-gravity being possible and some of them

are more critical. So this is actually a essay that won in 1953 by a scientist named Grest Whitt.

Okay, so this is, so this is interesting by this guy named Bryce DeWitt. And she sort of has

to hesitate on the name. This told me, this told me, and she mentions DeWitt later on. She comes

back to, and she says that, that Bryce DeWitt guy, she calls him later on. And I don't know, I,

Amy S. Gridge is not an anti-gravity researcher in the sense of a serious lab researcher. I could

tell that already by this point in her lecture. She's not somebody who's out there doing cutting-edge

research on her own in a lab, either theoretical. I can tell by the way she talks. This, this is a good

lecture, but it's, it's, it's a layman's lecture given by a layman is how it feels to me.

That the way she stumbles over words that she shouldn't know, and concepts that are, she hesitates

on trying to, that she would know down cold if she were a serious researcher, which is there's

nothing wrong with that. I'm not, I'm not dinging her for that. I think it's admirable that she's

doing that she did this. And, you know, in some ways, it, you know, I find it endearing that she's,

she's doing this. I'm on her side. But the idea that she's, she's, she's running some kind of lab

and doing this heavy research that is probably could be, could be classified and all this seems by,

by 20 minutes into watching her, I realized that this is not who she is. Now, does that, does that

eliminate the possibility that she was murdered? I don't want to say that.

Maybe she learned something that she was not supposed to know. I don't know. But her own work and

her own research, whatever it was, is more in the sense of, she's educated. She got a degree,

I think, in, in biology and chemistry, double major. And, and, and so she's smart. And, and,

and she knows how to understand things. But she's not doing anything that would be in my mind

and something that's going to get her in trouble because it's, it's too sensitive for the public to

know about. That I, I don't, I just don't see that. I don't see it. Like I said, I'm still on her

side. In fact, I'm on her side even more than I was because I, you know, she put in Bryce DeWitt,

who I, I knew Bryce DeWitt. He's passed away now. He passed away in 2004. I used to have lunch with

him once a week in Austin, a very smart guy. He didn't think much of me, but that's okay.

All right, ZVM $2. Exactly 100% Matt. And I feel the same about the clueless

pompous Europeans and God bless all their, their patrons who don't get enough support from their

country when shout out to county gains Ireland. Yes, Ireland, man. Some amazing things happening

right now. There are some great Europeans. There's a great, you know, I know, I'm lumping

those Europeans I was dissing, which are like, you know, the, you know, the kind I'm talking about

in with a lot of great people. I would love nothing better to see Europe stand up and take control

of its destiny again. Bare BL $20. Sorry, I'm late. Keep missing you live. Hey, you're right here.

You're right in time. We're talking about Amy Eskridge,

anti-gravity researcher, or, you know, she wrote about it at least. We could say that.

But... Well, just to paraphrase this, is she kind of need a good theory before you can really

make a working device? All right, that's, I love that she mentions that. Very kudos to her

for highlighting this. Not everybody would do this. I think she's giving a very balanced,

a very balanced presentation about anti-gravity. I think it's very fair the way she does this

lecture. I wish the, I wish the slides were better. I wish, I wish it was shot better because

this is really good, actually, her lecture. And, but she's balanced and she, she's points out the

having known to it. I can tell you that this is, this is something he would say, which is that,

you know, if we're going to have this technology and we're going to build these devices and look

for these kind of effects, we need a good theory. We need a good theory of how this might work.

Now, you don't always need that, but, you know, you really do need that if you're going to do,

do this well. But we don't really have a theory. That's, this is what we lack. I don't know. I've,

I've seen these devices that she's going to talk about. So, and so built this and it supposedly

showed this and all this kind of stuff for anti-gravity. I see that. What I do not see at all is a theory,

a theory of this, how this would work. And as a theorist, this is where I, I just get stuck on this.

I'm like, I need a theory of how this might work. And if we do did have a theory about how

gravity modification could work, we could go test it and tinker around with it, but we don't have

a theory. And where I get frustrated in this discussion, even among people on our side who are

really into the gravity modification, where I get stuck on this, people who think that doesn't

matter. Like, oh, well, just, it's like, no, this is super important. I agree with Bryce here.

I grew with my old friend Bryce, my old teacher Bryce. That this is, no, if it's, if it's something

valid, we should be able to develop it, it doesn't have to be the correct theory. It can just be a guess.

You know, it probably just be a guess at first, but we need somewhere to start. And this is where

we can go from there. All right.

All right. So then in the 1950s, there was, I love her, I love her presentation. She talks about,

I'm just going to, you know, talk about it so because we can move along. Talks about government

research than that at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. There was supposedly research there in

gravity modification. Really well, well compiled slides on her part. Surral generator. This is

something that's claimed combination of anti-gravity and free energy device. Okay. So we, again,

we're combining several things, which is, which is gravity modification and free energy is sort of

energy from the vacuum, I guess. And two things at once. Again, you kind of see this. And I have to

say this does sort of always raise some red flags as a physicist when, when say, oh, this is

anti-gravity and it's free energy and it does this. And that's like, whoa, wait a minute. Does all

those things? Okay. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just saying it is

something that sort of gives you a little bit of pause when you hear that. Like, oh, okay. This does

all those. Okay. So the Surral generator, and she comes back to this. This is 1946. This was,

again, another supposed device. I'm going to have to learn. I'm going to have to learn about all

these things every time. I'm sort of into this now. I'm sort of into the anti-gravity thing now.

I'm, you know, at least I can pick up where Amy Eskridge left off doing this nice educational

things about it. I like her style. The Dean drive. So a reactionless drive. Here we get into this

sort of propulsion. This is sort of the sideways thing I was telling you about.

Claim to produce propulsion without propellant exhaust, without propellant exhaust,

linear oscillating mechanism. I don't know what that means. I mean, I know what the terms mean,

but I don't know what that means in this context. Effect maybe due to friction. So again, she,

I think she, she's talking about this device and says, well, this guy claimed it did something.

It was a propulsion device. Again, not gravity modification, but propulsion. And her comment here

that she makes, well, is that, well, you know, it might have just been an illusion. It might have

been just due to friction and this thing wobbling around. So she's not, you know, she's not like

sitting there like a zealot about this, which is a good sign. That's why I like her style a lot.

I really recommend this. The Wallace machine, another one, spinning brass discs.

Align's nuclear spin. Okay, I know what nuclear spin is. I don't know why spinning brass

discs would align them. Patent site kinemastic field as mechanism of

action and unsubstantiated. So another thing, I just, I love her talk. It's really new. Another one,

the left-weight gyroscopes. So this guy who invented maglev supposedly came up with this thing

with gyroscopes. And she sort of proposed this and says, well, it probably was just Newton's law.

There was probably nothing to it. It was, I saw kudos to her for being very balanced

in her presentation. The Wallace machine, 1968, I guess we do we talked about that already.

Yeah, we did. Okay. And so I'm going to let her talk again, of course. Anti-gravity research,

modern efforts. Okay, let's let her, this is a good place to let her talk again a little bit.

So this part of brings us up to the present. And let's hear what she has to say here.

In 1973, there was the man's field amendment. And this restricted COD dollars

from being spent on non-military applications. So things like propulsion or both, you know,

anti-gravity propulsion confelling or that umbrella. And so this kind of means that we're not really

doing anti-gravity research in the public sector of the government. I think we're at all

our legislation. And so kind of the explanation at the time was, well, this stuff doesn't work,

so we don't want to waste money on it. But maybe another explanation is that they had

their own black budgets and they didn't want to double spend on their other projects.

Okay, that's an interesting point. So the man's field amendment passed in 1973.

I think I'd heard about this, but I didn't realize what this, so no DOD research for non-military

applications. And it may be one of the reasons that things went into black budgets instead of

being openly researched. So this did, this, I don't know if this was connected to what happened

for Dietrich Maryland with the bio-weapon research. So no, I guess not because that was a,

the US signed a convention that we weren't going to do biological weapons research.

And it was under the Nixon administration, but all that did was move it underground. We still kept

doing it and they moved it all over to vaccine research at Fort Dietrich. So things, you know,

these things have a way of playing out no matter what. So I hadn't heard of this this effect of

the man's field amendment. She does a Hutchison effect, another somebody tried to recreate

Tesla's experiments. Okay, again, really a gold mine for this. And she's just got some questions

from the audience. The woodward effect, another thing. And here she mentions, here's, here's

another slide where I realized that she's, she's not doing cutting edge research on her own.

Because she does mention this, there's this diagram that you can see here on the screen,

which is a space-time diagram from general relativity that's possible in general relativity.

And it's called the Alcubiary metric. I mentioned it at GART. And some of my other panelists

rolled their eyes like, okay, he's talking about that. But it's a theoretical warp drive. So it's

it's a theoretical propulsion mechanism. Again, not really not so much levitation,

but modifying space-time to create like a warp drive where you basically move a bubble around

something. And it's, it's possible in theory sort of, it's not really possible in theory because

you would need to have conditions exist that don't exist as far as we know in terms of mass.

But if you could get there, you might be able to do something like this. It's called the Alcubiary

drive. She didn't know how to pronounce Alcubiary, which again, I know, this sounds really snooty,

I know. But there are towels when somebody, how well somebody knows a subject. And she had to

somebody correct her in the audience. And I'm like, okay, she's not, she's not deeply familiar

with something that I would expect her to be deeply familiar with if she were doing cutting edge

research. And again, not a knock on her. I'm not saying that I'm not, I'm not discrediting her

because of that. I think that, I think she's doing a really good job presenting this material.

And, and so, but. So this is another reactionless thruster kind of. But it is, I think, evidence against

that she was, she was targeted by some black ops for something she knew. The D drive was a

reactionless drive. So, meaning that you get thrust, but there's no propellant on the other end.

So, he said that this would enable basically a warp drive where you're, you have a large negative

mass and then it warps space time. And then what you have here is a large negative mass. We don't

have that. That's the part we don't have. We don't have a large negative mass. If we could find

something that could satisfy that, we might have, we might be able to make this kind of thing.

So, yeah, Sammy's right in the chat. Shrink space in front of you and expand it behind you

and away you go. That's sort of the way it would work if it were possible. But it, it violates

any conditions we have right now. But we, maybe, you know, this is kind of thing where I would

start to agree with like general class that we got to keep an open mind about what, you know,

about what might be possible.

Yeah. And so, this is supposed to be like a compression and an expansion in space time that

basically causes it to like travel in one direction and solve.

All right. Ah, here we get, here we get into serious, serious gravity modification research.

The, here we get into the real deal. And this starts with Ning Lee. And I, and I talked about her

when I did the show about gravity modification or anti-gravity last year. So Ning Lee is a,

it was a Chinese researcher. She worked at University of Alabama Huntsville. So right there were,

where Amy Askridge is, is, I don't know if she's given the talk in Huntsville, but possibly.

And there was a 1999 popular mechanics about her. And supposedly, she found and measured an effect

in which under conditions of, of, which I'll explain in a minute, that you could get a decrease in gravity

on an object. This, and, and how this works. Again, we're lacking a coherent theory.

According to, I've called to do wit criterion, Bryce to wit criterion, because I want to honor him.

He was, he helped me out quite a bit in my research without knowing it most of the time,

but he did. I was scared of him. Man, I was scared of him. And his wife, his wife was even scarier

to seal the wit. Both of whom yelled at me at various times, going me in numbskill, which I was.

Well, that's okay. All right. So, so Ning Lee. So what her research involved around a superconducting

ceramic material, a disc, superconducting ceramic material. And here we get into superconductivity,

which is his own sort of interesting field of research, which pops up in, it pops up in,

in the fusion research too. So, superconductor, what is it? It's, it's basically,

it's, it's any material that can conduct electricity, but without any resistance at all. And it was

discovered experimentally. This is interesting, because this is almost a template for how we might

have stumble on anti-gravity kind of things. It's superconductivity. This very strange effect

was not discovered by theory. It was discovered by experiment. It was stumbled upon,

it really even before quantum mechanics was discovered. It was discovered in 1913, I think, or

1911. Before World War One, it was discovered. And the effect was discovered, but it could only take

place at very cold temperatures, like just a few degrees of absolute, absolute zero, which was,

one of the reasons it wasn't discovered until then, it was not possible to create those kind of

temperatures until then. But once it was, they discovered this effect in certain materials

that basically the electrical resistance and anything dropped to zero. But you had to be,

it had to be this super cold. And then there is this thing called high temperature superconductivity.

So, with fusion, we had fusion, and then we had cold fusion, which meant that it happens at room

temperature. Well, with, with superconductivity, it's just the opposite. High temperature superconductivity

happens at room temperature, because it normally only happens just above absolute zero. So, if you can

get it to happen at a reasonable room temperature, that would be really high temperature superconductivity,

and that would be really great, because then we could make materials and just have them work at room

temperature instead of having them work in a lab where it's very, very cold. Now, since, since the

initial discovery of superconductivity, we've been able to find materials that where we can have

superconductivity at around 72 degrees above absolute zero, which is actually high temperature,

compared to, compared to liquid helium. It's a liquid nitrogen temperature and liquid nitrogen.

Yeah, that's not a big deal. Liquid nitrogen is fairly easy to make, and it's fairly easy to

cool things down to then the temperature of liquid nitrogen. So, yeah, you got to have a special lab

for that and the refrigerator for it, but it's doable. It's doable. So, once you can get something,

so that's what we did. We were able to do by the 1990s is have superconducting materials that were

liquid nitrogen temperatures, which we call high temperature superconductivity, and this

allowed Ning Lee to do this kind of research about gravitational modification, where she took

ceramic materials of superconducting materials and spun them, rotated them, which will align the

ion spins to produce gravito magnetic and gravito electric effects, which I don't,

I know what that means exactly. I mean, I can guess at what it means, but I don't really,

I know what the terms mean, but I don't know what it means means. I need to see equations to,

I always got to see equations. I do want to mention though that superconductivity, like I said,

it was discovered experimentally as an effect in a lab in 1911 or 1913, one of the two, and they

had no explanation for it though. So, it is, they didn't have an explanation for it till the late

50s, I think, if I'm not mistaken. 1950s, at least, BCS theory, it was called, where they discovered

why there's these things called electrons team up and what are called Cooper pairs, and it's like

then superconductivity made sense, and we had a theory of it after that. And the guys who came up with

the theory of it after it took over 40 years to come up with a theory of why superconductivity

and they won the new bulb Nobel Prize for it. All right, I got a few rubber ants,

what I mentioned here, that's you. We got Keith O'Higgins, Matt, I thought the large negative

mass was Rosie O'Donnell, and moved so high. You're on a roll lately, Keith, I have to say.

Duffy's tavern, $3, I think the biggest easy hide on limitless energy is presented,

and the technology saved and brought back Kirk Sorenson at MRU and later FLFTR, liquid fluoride

thorium reactors, watched the 1.3 hours watch. Kirk Sorenson, okay, Duffy's tavern, thank you for

that. I will check that out. I wish winning the Nobel Prize meant something. Yeah, the BCS theory,

that was a big triumph. You know, that was a 40 years they had no explanation for superconductivity.

But anyway, Ning Li, this Chinese researcher, supposedly measured this effect with a rotating

ceramic disc, superconducting disc, and she published it, I think she published it, and it was,

she was featured in a popular mechanics about it. There was a little flourish at the time like,

oh, maybe this is a real thing. And then something happened, and her student was Doug Tor,

who worked with her, he was an American. And there was some traction about this for a

couple years, some really serious interest that this might be a thing. And then Ning Li disappeared.

She disappeared, and nobody quite knows why. Maybe she went back to China. Supposedly,

she had breast cancer. She may have died. Nobody quite knows. She just sort of disappeared.

Or did she go into a black research program? Was her was her researcher have taken out of the public

realm? We don't know. We can speculate. But this is, you know, this is very interesting that she

just sort of disappeared because this, because you know, who also just sort of disappeared off the map

was Doug Tor or assisted too. So he, he wound up going to the University of South Carolina

where he continued this research into what he and Ning Li had been doing in Huntsville. And then

he sort of just disappears too. His research sort of gets basically, it's not released by the

university. What he was doing, and he just sort of drops out a site and nobody quite knows where

he is now from what I heard. And meanwhile, supposedly, they had done this, they had gone to the,

what MSFC, you can see on the screen, that's Marshall Space Flight Center.

And they were working with NASA about this. And all of a sudden, they both disappear and nobody's

heard of them or their research. Very, very interesting, very interesting. So I don't know what to

make of that. You know, if you're, if you're inclined to believe that there's been suppression of

research into this, and I'm definitely not opposed to the idea that there has been that kind of

suppression, definitely open to that idea. Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do with that other than

to sort of use that as a fact. There's, you know, it's, I, one can then, oh, here they might have

discovered this or that. They might have discovered a lot of things or they might have discovered

nothing. Maybe they didn't really have anything, but, but this was done, this was done to bring

it into a classified form just in a precautionary way. You know, doesn't mean they actually had

something. Maybe it was just done precaution. They might find something. Let's make sure that

it stays classified right from the get go. Who knows, right? Oh, we have a speculation there.

Oh, we have a speculation. So, yeah, okay. Well, let's hear Amy talk a little bit more.

This sort of is kind of interesting. So in the 1990s, we actually had quite a bit of sort of

anti-gravity research that was done here in Huntsville. And there was a UAH scientist named

Lee. And she worked with a grad student named Doug Torf. It's the same Lee here as Doug Torf. And

that's, it was the chair of the physics department. That's very small. And so she theorized that

you had a magnetic field on a superconductor, that it would align the ion spins in the

bottom matrix of the solid state ceramic, that it would align the ions and trace the

gravito magnetic gravito electric effect. And so, you can't, I said an article on her.

The NASA about to fall when they did a collaboration in the lean on these. And then she actually

left UAH and founded this company called AC Gravity LLC. And that was in 1999. And if you were

for her company, it's still registered. But no one really knows what they're doing. And she got

a 500-cellular DOD contract in 2001. And then it kind of ended there. And we'll talk about that

more in a second maybe. Oh, okay, yeah. So, what happened in England? So if you do go what happened

to Lee and just Google that sentence, it's kind of like a weird internet legend that has originated

out of Huntsville. This is a Reddit post on your art conspiracy talking about, hey, what happened

to me? Why did she get out of the DARPA funding and then disappear? So, I just have an interesting

internet legend that has come out of Huntsville. She had two of them. Again, I love that she's

really balanced about this. I love that she's, you know, presenting this. This is my style of

doing stuff too, as I like to, you know, you got it, you got to keep, you got to keep a level

mind about this. If you believe it too much, then you can really, you know, just, there's too much

buy-in sometimes. But then there's people that are just sort of asshole skeptics. Oh, there's

nothing here, you know, the types. And I don't think that sort of science to have that kind of stance.

I really don't. So, okay, let's skip ahead. Ah, here we go. Now, here is probably,

if you want to say the state of the art of anti-gravity research. Here she's talking about,

and again, she's got a little bit of a pronunciation problem with some of the names. So, this is

Podkletnoff. Podkletnoff is Russian. He was working in Finland at the University of Tempere

in Finland, where he supposedly discovered something very close to like what Ning Lee discovered.

And Amy calls, called him the, was it Podkletnoff or something. She uses a strange pronunciation,

which I don't think is correct for his name. And so, I thought, okay, you know, if somebody's,

if you really do an hardcore research in the field, and you've, you know, you've gone to conferences,

and you've talked to colleagues, and you learn how to pronounce things the right way just by

being around that. That's, that's my take. And so, again, it reinforces my opinion that she's,

you know, she's a casual lay researcher, and which is great. We need that. She's, she's talented

communicator, but she's not, she wasn't, she wasn't off because of high-level things she was

working on. I thought a percent, I believe that. Okay. So, I don't, I don't think there's anything

there. I don't mind that she's been lumped in with this group of, of disappeared scientists,

though, because otherwise, I wouldn't have known about her. And I think, I like honoring her life

by doing this show about her. I, I, I like it. So, um, so again, a rotating, so, uh,

podclinop, again, a rotating superconductor, uh, itrium, barium, copper oxide, that's Y-A-B-E-C-O,

you see that a lot in high temperature, any kind of high temperature superconductivity,

a gravity shield effect. So, supposedly, he was able to decrease gravity by 7%. Again,

what's the theory behind this? Now we're getting into, we don't know territory. Again,

Bryce DeWitt's going, give me a theory, uh, and I'll, I'll be Bryce DeWitt's stand in because

somebody has to be. That's what I'll say, too. Give me the theory. And we don't really have one,

though, because it's been hard to duplicate it. But there are people who claim they duplicated

podclinop's work. There are people who claim they duplicated and some of them retracted it.

Very much like what happened with cold fusion. People said, oh, oh, we found this.

And then they said, no, wait, I didn't find it after all. We were just mistaken that the

podclinop's work went through the same kind of thing. Except for one guy, there's a guy in

France who's consistent. No, I found it. Again, again, it's sort of like, so this is a Russian

thesis to really within just a few years of namely publishing her first paper about,

about superconductors in that way. He started doing this love rotating YBCO disc and YBCO is kind

of interesting because it was actually invented out of UH by a grad student and it was famously stolen

by another university in Kansas within the next day of it. Okay, she's talking about the

superconductivity part. Supposedly there were some shenanigans where it would stolen away.

That's very interesting. I wish she would have mentioned the names here. She doesn't mention

any names. But supposedly podclinop found a 2% reduction in gravitational force. That's what

weight is. Gravitational force. 2% reduction in gravitational force by this effect. By a gravity

shielding effect. Very interesting. Very interesting. But some near replications have been done by this

guy in France, Claude Poer. She's going to mention. So podclinop, this is the, if you're going to get,

if you're going to really dig into gravity shielding, he's the person you're going to,

who's at work, you're going to focus on. Okay, got some questions from the audience.

About podclinop. And then we've got Tor. Again, Douglas Tor was was was neatly

graduate assistant at Huntsville. Jose Vargas. The people in the audience seem to know a lot about

Vargas and ask some questions about Tim or Dada in 2001. Gravity beam generator work at

University of South Carolina. So this is if Douglas Tor left Huntsville and went to the University

of South Carolina, presumably after he graduated. And he worked on some things there involving

quantum gravity and possible. Same kind of effects there. Kind of look into that. I got a lot of

things I want to look into now. This has really fired up my imagination again.

All right, in mode of nazae, there's another guy here, Giovanni mode of nazae. And here she's

mentioning how how this is her slide about how these people seem to even fall off the face of the

earth. Which that is sort of interesting is they well, they fill off the face of the earth because

their work was bogus. It's like, it usually works the opposite. If somebody's work is like pseudo

scientific, usually they hang around to milk it. I don't know. That's my impression.

I can't, that's just my impression. But when people just drop out of sight completely,

that's really odd. That is odd. That does raise red flags. So right now, I think so we're at

what 716. Right now, as we give this show, I think where we are is that we are at a phase,

I think where we are coming around to this idea of disclosure, disclosure about possible alien

technology, possible advanced technology that's been hidden. It seems to be just picking up where it

used to go away for a while, then it'd come back in the news and go away for a while. It seems like

it's with us all of the time now. Like the drumbeats are just getting louder and louder about it.

And does that mean we're headed for a big siop? Like some people think, I don't know.

I don't know. I was reading ex articles, ex articles were saying, well, all this gravity modification

anti-gravity stuff is just, it's just a cover for the real thing which are basically big fans

levitation by just air. That's how the German flying saucers mostly worked.

And there's no such thing as anti-gravity. Everybody's being fooled by this. And I read those and

I thought, you know, everybody's got to warm up everybody else with their irony and cleverness,

don't we? You see this in our community too, which is like, oh, you know, it's like,

here's an example. Oh, you know, oh, I'm skeptical of the moon landings because I think that the

Van Allen belts, they would, the astronauts couldn't go through the Van Allen belts,

which are radiation belts between the earth and the moon. They'd be killed. So I don't think

the moon landing happens because of that. And then you get somebody's like, well, I can't believe

you believe space even exists. That's so fake and gay. You're so great. It's like, everybody's

got to warm up themselves. It's like, I feel like there's a group of people, even in our community,

that are always looking to be the more ironic, more cool, cooler than school. Like, oh, you believe

that? You believe that narrative? Oh, yeah, so that's so quite, you know, it's like, you know,

sometimes things are actually true. I'm sorry. When somebody takes that kind of approach,

it's such a turn off. And I'm not going to name names. I'm not going to say any names about

people that are that way. But they're people that are that way. I might, my credibility level

about what their saying goes down. I turn it down. I go, I'm not, I'm not going to deal with you

because I think you're trying to be clever and smarter than everybody else. I get it and show how

everybody else just isn't as clever as you at figuring out the truth in the narrative. I get it.

I get it. And you've seen, I see some of this in the anti-gravity stuff lately, which is there's

so much of it online now. It's because it's just the drumbeats are getting louder about this.

And the scientist, these dead scientists are missing, is feeding right into it. It's like there's

a frenzy now about this. But I just want to say, because we're coming to the end of the show,

that Amy, I don't know what happened to her. You know, I don't like the idea that she took her

her own life. I don't like that idea. She seems like she was smart. She could have, you know,

had promised as a communicator, but people have their own issues and their own problems.

And you don't know what's going on in somebody's head. But

so, so I, I feel privileged to honor her by doing this show tonight, like I said.

But I don't want to say that, that she took her own life. I don't want to even say that, you know,

because I don't know, that's what they say. I don't know if that's what happened.

And there's got a bunch of questions from the audience. This guy, Claude Poehr,

got to keep my eye on him. He supposedly says he verified Polk Klettnov's effect,

and that it was, was able to observe, I think, 7% reduction.

All right, that's pretty, you know, I guess, I guess you want to go for 100%,

if you can get to 100% reduction in gravity, then you can, then things could sort of float and

levitate. I guess that's the way it works. Again, I need to see equations. I need to see numbers,

which there are some numbers there. You can go look up Polk Klettnov's work online. He's got

actual papers, and I was reading some of them, and they're pretty interesting, because he talked

about how he did it. Okay, Morningstar applied physics, Paul Merad and John Brandenburg.

It's supposedly made a surral machine was one of those machines, or, oh, there are the ones that

claim 7% weight reduction. So there's people still doing this. Again, very much like cold fusion.

Same kind of patterns, which I don't know if that means they're both bogus, or whether they're both,

there's something there. I don't know. I'm open-minded about it. I'm willing to still believe

either way. Boeing phantom work. Supposedly, Boeing was doing some work on these black triangle

ships, and maybe that's what people were seeing in the sky with some of these UFOs. Okay.

All right, so recent declassifications. I've got some papers here that were the Defense Department

released. One's about wormhole travel. I'm going to definitely look those up. Again,

this is a great lecture, and if you're interested in this, I put the link in the chat down there,

and she's got some really, yeah, the future. What's the next step? All right, here she goes.

I love this part. This will wrap up with this. To the point where we have

the time field, and the air doesn't seem to be moving that them so fast, and that's why there's no

fluid friction. Yeah. According to his document that he wrote. So these are kind of interesting.

There's some kind of fine cartons, and some of them, like, uh, wormholes, and stuff that kind of

you will get. So the future, what's the next step for anti-gravity? We've looked at a whole bunch

of different devices of, like, varying credibility. So how are we going to get to the point where we

have credible anti-gravity? And I have a picture on this one here because it reminds me of it here.

All right, so this is in Huntsville. She's given this. So in conclusion,

what now, we kind of need theories of the testicle hypotheses. Yes. That was what that

Bryce Dwitt guys said. That Bryce Dwitt guys. He was talking about, hey, we're kind of ahead of ourselves here.

We need good theories. That's like an Einstein guy. So we really need to focus on, like, the

quantized gravity. Yes. And get your up here and then go build something. Yeah, good luck with that.

We think we need independently funded research. Okay, yes. When you're at a university or an

academic institution, and you want to work on this stuff, and they say, oh no, that's a friend

that you can't do that. Or you have a result that you want to publish. And they say, oh no,

that's crazy. And then so that that suppresses a lot of publications that maybe are accurate,

but they're perceived badly and some professors are afraid to publish it. But if you had a

private-leaf-funded research institution, you can just study whatever you want to.

So, that everything is promising results always seem to disappear. So like,

which one you see of this guy, this guy, right when she's concluding, this guy goes off on a

long tangent about electron. And I'm like, and he, it was just listened to, listen to this guy.

A hundred percent certain this guy is Hungarian. I can tell by his accent.

Three points is with way more legs of 10 to minus 29 meters.

I was out of those three points. It just exists. All we need is an end up.

I think we need to have that effect before we look at them. So, do you see a clerk?

Yes. She's like, yeah, yeah. And I was like, I can tell she's like, this guy's like, I don't

know what he's trying to say. But he's definitely Hungarian, which I thought was funny.

So, there's like 20 minutes of Q&A at the end of this, where she talked. So, I haven't even seen

all of this. But we're coming up to 725. We got to wrap up. I just want to say thank you to

everybody tonight for coming along. If I was going to found an anti-aggravitational modification

research institute, which who knows maybe I will, at the moment I'd be tempted to call

the Amy Eskridge Institute for, because I think she was cool. And I'm sad that she's no longer with us.

But I don't think there's anything

hinky about not in the way that there is with some of the other people who were killed.

So, I don't want to lump her in with that.

Duffy's tavern $1. This is the new 1920s. Everything 1920s being dreamed about again. Yeah, we're

we're in weird times. It feels like anything is possible. Duffy's again another $1. So, thank you.

So, excited to make it during the show. Always watching for years. After live your talk on

on Pan Am and what air travel was and what it meant to America. Psychie and what it is now. Yep.

Glad to be here. Thank you so much. Thank you to all of you. We're going to we got one more

sponsor to play out. Spetzels got to my URL for only lands ready to go. All right.

All right. Oh, we got that. Thank you. I love all my audience. Thank you for all this.

Sammy, old farts with arms crossed are always cack. Yeah. All right. Thank you to all of you. So,

we got a sponsor. Let's see. We got one more. Oh, it's our it's our friends that you know

at soft disclosure. And I'll play this then I'll play out and I'll see you guys all next week.

Thank you to all of you for coming. I don't say this lightly.

This lotion changes people. My knuckles would actually start to crack. Started using the soft

disclosure of lotion and I am very impressed. Even within just a few days, I've noticed

that it's a tremendous difference. That's not a script. That's what happens when something actually

works. It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. Yeah. That line keeps coming

up because when you don't use it, your skin starts acting up. Every single ingredient in soft

disclosure is intentionally chosen. They're not there's no filler ingredients. It is not like

this BS product where you, you know, they have a bunch of ingredients. Every ingredient listed

is for a purpose. Over 65 star reviews for the lotion alone. Not influencers, not actors.

Just people who skinned finely shut up. Soft disclosure lotion. Once you try it, you'll understand

why people won't stop talking about it. Live at SoftSplosh.com and use code Badlands and get 10% off.

Thank you so much for joining us and don't forget to hit the thumbs up on this video.

And a special thank you to all of our advertising partners. Please remember to shift your dollars

to support those businesses that support Badlands media.