Well, I can tell, from the comments I have received from this thread, that my "outside the box" thinking is not welcome here and probably would be best at a site other than this one. Though I would like to leave you with a few things to ponder....
First, conspiracy theories. I wouldn't consider myself a "conspiracy theorist". I don't think that the government is engaging in mind control and is responsible for 9-11, I don't think the Queen of England is a reptilian, I don't believe in aliens, and I think that the New World Order stuff is a lot of bull. However, I do believe that the government isn't going to tell the average person about their best technology, (they would be stupid to) and if someone theorizes on the existence of said technology I do believe they would do whatever they could to keep it quiet. For example, if you worked on some top secret project (as some people on this forum have/are) and someone theorizes on something that is a major component of the project and is "Top Secret" are you going to come out and openly say, "you are right" and compromise the project? No. You would do everything you could to discredit the individual so that no one believed what they said, and probably even give some excuses, lame as they may be, as to why that couldn't be the case. So, is it so far fetched that there are "conspiracies" about "Black Projects"?
Second, pseudoscience. As it is taught in certain introductory science classes, pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Beyond the initial introductory analyzes offered in science classes, there is some epistemological disagreement about whether it is possible to distinguish "science" from "pseudoscience" in a reliable and objective way. As far as "classified" information goes, the science behind it will always be "pseudoscience" as long as the information is classified because, going back to the conspiracy theory portion of my post, those who are experts in the science behind it would be sworn to secrecy and you wouldn't be able to get your "testability requirement" satisfied. Some criticisms that lead to the accusation of pseudoscience are also true to some extent of some new genuinely scientific work. These include:
* claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results
* claims which contradict experimentally established results
* work failing to operate on standard definitions of concepts
* emotion-based resistance, by the scientific community, to new claims or theories
The last of those is definitely true of anti-gravity, gravity shielding, electrogravitics, or whatever you want to call it. Richard McNally, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, states: "The term 'pseudoscience' has become little more than an inflammatory buzzword for quickly dismissing one’s opponents in media sound-bites" and, at least as it relates here, I tend to believe him. For this section I would like to leave you with the following things to ponder. First, "science" is often wrong. Case and point, "the world is flat", "the Earth is at the center of the galaxy and everything revolves around us", and "Earth's atmosphere is too dense for meteors to penetrate" just to name a few. Second, many things regarded today as "Science" should be classified as "pseudoscience", case and point, There is no physical evidence that gravity is proportional to, and therefore a property of mass. There is no way to prove that an object will move in a straight line unless a force acts on it to change that motion and, in fact, nothing moves in straight lines. The historic swirling mass of gas claimed to impart its motion to matter in the solar system and therefore account for the rotation and orbiting of planets is just an ad hoc fantasy that fails to explain any of the chaotic movement that is the solar system, and the off-the-wall assertion that chaos provides the solar system with the stability it needs if it were formed out of a swirling mass of gas is as nonsensical as the unfounded belief that particles that repel each other hold matter together. Even the measurable facts Empirical Science claims as validation are opposed by measurements in physical reality. Light, which can be physically measured to diminish out of existence with distance on Earth travels forever in space so that we can see stars at the end of the universe and the beginning of time. Objects, which come to rest with respect to the forces acting upon them on Earth are claimed to move without current force in space. Energy is always consumed on Earth but gravity, which forces objects to come to rest on the surface of the Earth, is not used up when it bends the straight-line motion of the planets into circular motion. Momentum, which is always overcome by gravity on Earth is not affected by gravity in space allowing planets in space to be bent into perpetual circular orbits. In putting numbers to things, Empirical Science can only approximate the stars in galaxies and the atoms in matter in the billions, but can tell with precise accuracy the number of electrons orbiting the nuclei of the atom of any element. It uses parallax measurements to determine interstellar distances when the errors that have to be taken into consideration to compute the measurements exceed the measurements themselves.
Third, and finally, I would like to ask what the purpose of this forum is other than to consolidate information that is scattered around the internet and other books and, with a little bit of research, one could find without resorting to this forum? It seems a little, I won't say hypocritical because that is a little strong but how about, inconsistent, that you would so easily dismiss this because, from your own source, "we're bombarded with a hodgepodge of information trawled up from the Internet, other books and UFO and anti-gravity enthusiasts, along with some firsthand reporting" when this site itself is solely "a hodgepodge of information trawled up from the Internet, other books and secret project enthusiasts, along with some firsthand reporting."
I have been told that several people here have come here from ATS. I think you can go from one extreme to the other, which is what I personally believe has happened here. ATS is of the extreme that anything goes and the world is a big conspiracy so say whatever you think and it is even better if there is some fact that can be twisted to support your case. I believe this site has reached the other, equally horrible extreme, where theorizing and posting your thoughts or the thoughts of others that coincide with your own are dismissed as conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and just plain science fiction if the information doesn't fall int the realm of "common knowledge" I know that this probably makes me seem like a "nut case" or "crackpot" to probably everyone here, and that is fine with me, I really don't care anymore. And in conclusion, I'll leave you with the following to consider.
Disinformation works best when mixed in with a little truth.
