(Stillness in the Storm Editor) Here is an interesting little video that, from what I can tell, appears to be authentic. If it is a valid example of an anti-gravity effect, then it would demonstrate that if someone can do this with simple everyday materials then surely, covert research that has access to large budgets can produce the same, given enough time.
This proof of concept would lend credence to the notion that various ultra-secret government projects called Unacknowledged Special Access Programs have likely already developed such technology long ago.
From as early as the 1920s and up until the 1950s, there was anti-gravity research taking place throughout the planet, pioneered by figures such as John Searl, Nikola Teska, Viktor Schauberger and Thomas Townsend Brown. But after the military industrial complex began developing their programs, all this research was deemed highly classified, hidden from the public, and an elaborate coverup campaign began that suppressed anyone who took such things seriously. Hence, before this coverup, mainstream academia acknowledged anti-gravity as a valid field of research. Since that time, the mere mention of such things in above-board scientific circles earns one shame, ridicule, and excommunication. However, behind closed doors, it appears that significant advances into anti-gravity have been made.
Many of the UFOs seen in the sky could be secret military craft that—to the uninformed—appears to be extraterrestrial in origin. Likely, the field of ufology is replete with examples of craft that are or were assumed to be extraterrestrial in nature but are actually human in design.
However, just because the human-run projects can produce what are called Alien Reproduction Vehicles doesn’t mean all such spacecraft are human designs.
Truth seekers must be aware of the pitfalls of bias.
Confirmation bias, which we could call correlation or explanation bias in this case, would assume because one example can be explained then all other examples are similarly explained—but such a belief would be an over-extension of logic.
One can suppose that based on a confirmed theory, other phenomena that fall within that context are similarly explained, but that would need to be verified on a case-by-case basis to provide the proper vetting or verification. Logical arguments should always be verified by observation and research—no matter how seemingly flawless. And it is a fallacy to rest one’s conclusions on logic alone—a problem many thinkers fall prey to.
Simply put, just because elephants are grey does not mean all gray things are elephants.
Confirmation bias is rampant in both scientific and non-scientific circles. Those seeking to exercise precise and accurate discernment mustn’t assume because one phenomenon can be explained verifiably that one need not verify other explanations for a similar event.
Thank you Felix for sharing this with me.
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Do you think this article needs a correction or update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.