The gravity propulsion claims in Matthew Livelsberger’s communications merit separate analysis from his testimony about civilian casualties in Afghanistan. This distinction is crucial not only for evaluating his evidence of war crimes but also for understanding current drone operations security.
Claims about gravity control propulsion systems require extraordinary scrutiny because they don’t just suggest advanced engineering – they imply a fundamental revolution in physics that has somehow remained hidden from the global scientific community. This isn’t merely unlikely; it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific advancement works.
Our current understanding of gravity comes from Einstein’s General Relativity, one of the most thoroughly tested theories in history. Any gravity control system would require either overturning General Relativity, finding massive loopholes that thousands of physicists have somehow missed, or developing engineering capabilities that bridge enormous theoretical gaps. The closest historical research programs, like the Air Force’s gravity research in the 1950s-70s, produced valuable theoretical work on conventional gravitational effects (like Kerr’s discoveries about rotating masses) but found no pathway to gravity control.
Modern attempts to unify gravity with quantum mechanics – arguably the largest effort in theoretical physics – still struggle with basic questions about gravity’s nature. The idea that classified military research has secretly solved these fundamental questions while leaving no trace in the broader scientific community strains credibility beyond reasonable bounds.
Even if we entertained the possibility of a gravity control breakthrough, implementing it would require a massive scientific and engineering infrastructure, supply chains for exotic materials and components, testing facilities and programs, training programs for operators and maintenance personnel, and fundamental changes to aerospace engineering education. The scale of such an enterprise would be impossible to completely hide from the global scientific community.
For comparison, when the Manhattan Project developed nuclear weapons, despite wartime secrecy, thousands of physicists knew the theoretical possibility, the broader scientific community understood the underlying principles, and multiple nations were pursuing similar research. No comparable foundation exists for gravity control technology.
This makes gravity propulsion claims particularly useful for very targeted counterintelligence purposes. They’re superficially plausible to non-experts yet effectively impossible to disprove (unlike claims about conventional technology). They map onto existing UFO and advanced technology beliefs, and they’re so extraordinary that they undermine the credibility of any associated claims. This pattern appears repeatedly in intelligence history. The now famous U-2 program long ago benefited from UFO speculation when stealth technology development was obscured by absurd claims. Advanced drone programs often attract similar technological mythology for similar reasons.
The U-2 case is particularly instructive because it shows how counterintelligence operations deliberately introduced fantastic elements to protect real classified technology. When civilian pilots reported strange aircraft at impossible altitudes, the Air Force would provide multiple, often contradictory explanations ranging from weather balloons to hints of more exotic possibilities. This created a ‘noise floor’ of speculation that effectively discredited legitimate observers by associating their accurate observations with increasingly outlandish claims.
This pattern of introducing fantastic elements to discredit legitimate observers has claimed numerous whistleblowers before Livelsberger. WWII British Naval Intelligence under Godfrey and Fleming used a “double cross system” – varying fake details were inserted into real documents about convoys to detect which German spies were active in specific regions, based on which version of the false information showed up in intercepted communications. In the 1990s, several Gulf War veterans who raised concerns about chemical weapons exposure found their legitimate medical complaints becoming entangled with increasingly exotic theories about secret weapons testing.
Livelsberger’s case follows a well documented progression. His detailed, verifiable testimony about drone strikes and civilian casualties has become intermixed with gravity drive claims in a way that mirrors these historical cases. The key difference is that modern counterintelligence operations maybe have become sophisticated at exploiting integrity vulnerabilties — using combat trauma such as TBI to accelerate a process of narrative contamination. While previous cases often relied on external social pressure and deliberate contradiction to introduce doubt, Livelsberger’s communications suggest a more insidious approach that leverages mental harm and psychological suffering to blur the line between direct observation and introduced fantasy.
This vulnerability-based targeting becomes particularly concerning when we consider the timeline of Livelsberger’s service. His record suggests someone whose moral objections to civilian casualties made him a potential risk for whistleblowing. The introduction of exotic technical elements into his narrative may represent a calculated attempt to force him out of operations through an early retirement on disability status – a modern evolution of old counterintelligence tactics that exploit rather than surveil potential whistleblowers.
If this was indeed the strategy, it backfired tragically. Rather than quietly accepting a glass ceiling leading to medical discharge, Livelsberger appears to have recognized attempted interference and manipulation. His final communications suggest someone who, despite or perhaps because of his combat trauma, maintained enough clarity to provide separate claims. He gave both direct observations of war crimes, as well as exotic claims he was being fed. His choice of suicide while explicitly providing testimony about civilian casualties regardless of the gravity drives suggests a determined effort to ensure his credible core evidence wouldn’t be lost under plausibility of technological revolution.
Meanwhile, modern drone operations face genuine security challenges around detection and tracking capabilities, counter-drone technologies, command and control security, autonomous systems limitations, international airspace regulations, and civilian oversight mechanisms. These real operational concerns, and likely exploits, require serious analysis. Claims about gravity propulsion not only distract from actual drone advanced capabilities but also from legitimate questions about autonomous systems, civilian oversight, and accountability in targeted strikes.
For the national security community, separating these narratives is crucial because Livelsberger’s testimony about civilian casualties in Afghanistan aligns with UN ground investigations, Brown University casualty data, known changes in ROE and reporting requirements, and documented operational patterns. His descriptions of drone operations reflect standard military procedures, known technical capabilities, established command structures, and verifiable policy changes. The gravity propulsion claims, by contrast, show classic signs of introduced disinformation through physically impossible capabilities, absence of supporting infrastructure, violation of known scientific principles, and isolation from the broader scientific community.
Understanding how gravity propulsion claims function as interference helps clarify both the credibility of Livelsberger’s core testimony and the ongoing challenges in drone operations security. It demonstrates why extraordinary claims about breakthrough technologies should be evaluated against the required scientific infrastructure, the broader research community’s knowledge, the physical principles involved, and the historical patterns of similar claims.
When evaluating whistleblower testimony about classified programs, distinguishing between operational reality and introduced disinformation remains essential. Claims that require overturning fundamental physics deserve particular skepticism, especially when they appear alongside more credible testimony about conventional operations and policy violations. This separation allows proper attention to both the serious evidence of civilian casualties and the real technical and ethical challenges in current drone operations – without being diverted by speculation about impossible technologies.
References:
- No peer-reviewed physics papers support claims of achieved gravitic propulsion
- Major physics institutions (CERN, NASA, etc.) consider gravity modification beyond current technological capabilities
- Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity – our most thoroughly tested theory of gravity – demonstrates that gravity is not a force that can be “canceled” but rather the curvature of spacetime itself caused by mass-energy
- Forward, R.L. (1963). “Guidelines to Antigravity,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 31, pp. 166-170. Mathematical demonstration that any practical antigravity device would violate fundamental laws of energy conservation.
- Bertolami, O., & Pedro, F.G. (2005). “Gravity Control Propulsion: Towards a General Relativistic Approach.” Instituto Superior Técnico, Departamento de Física, Lisboa, Portugal.
Understanding our calculation as the energy that must be spent to control a region of space-time, leads to a radically different conclusion. From this point of view, gravity manipulation is an essentially unfruitful process for propulsion purposes.
- Dröscher & Hauser (2009). “Gravitational Field Propulsion“, cites Tajmar’s definitive conclusion:
Even if modified gravitational laws existed, their usage for space propulsion is negligible… nothing has been uncovered to allow any action-at a-distance force field for space propulsion in interplanetary or interstellar space.
While the closing statement reference “impossible technologies” largely deflates any/all argument(s) contained within, reference is given to the inherent proven nature(s) of advancing technologies throughout world history. Understanding future technologies is the true test issue here.
@Gary
Is there a difference between “not yet” and “no”? History shows breakthroughs build from known science by working hard towards “not yet” mileposts. They don’t magically flip “no” to a “yes” in complete surprise to everyone.
Unicorns came from narwhal tusks. Griffins came from dinosaur bones. Both show how humans spin real things into fantasy for many reasons.
Gravity drives aren’t like skepticism around implementing known principles (like flight or wireless). Gravity drives would overturn our most thoroughly tested theories of physics yet somehow remain hidden from the global scientific community.
We should absolutely use our imagination. Go ride a unicorn. But let’s not confuse that with actual discoveries.
The best written media article I have read in years. Thank you for a thought provoking read.
All of this is fine, up until you realize the tech may have been a gift and not a human development. But this this is just a wild fanciful theory too so it all boils down to who you want to believe. Personally. I don’t think the US gub’ment has the intelligence to do any type advanced physics. DEI you know. And the Church of the Pastafarians tend to hold things back a mite.
Asimov did wonderfully imaginative work with gravitics in his “Foundation” trilogy (1951-53).
Gravitic propulsion is not about generating and controlling our own gravitational fields, but rather warping spacetime to create a continuous, effortless glide. While highly speculative, this is not out of the realm of a breakthrough and the larger scientific community would not likely be on the forefront of this type of breakthrough— as it would not come in incremental steps but a momental leap of understanding.
@Joe
Any misconception about ‘warping spacetime’ versus ‘controlling gravity’ reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of General Relativity. They’re the same thing. Again, just like the Manhattan Project couldn’t hide the basic physics of nuclear fission from the global scientific community, any breakthrough in spacetime manipulation requires widely understood theoretical foundations and massive infrastructure. There’s no path to this kind of technology that bypasses the basic physics being worked on by thousands of scientists worldwide (except the “gift” concept mentioned in another comment for laughs). The laws of physics don’t change just because gravity control gets a fancier name.
Even if we had been “gifted” such technology, we would still need to understand the basic physics principles to:
And all of that would still leave traces in the scientific community, materials supply chains, and engineering education. I feel like I’m working in the redundant department of redundancy at this point.
It’s telling how gravity drive claims seem to evolve: it’s human-developed technology until the physics problems are pointed out and then the alien technology appears as the “belief”. But gifting still never actually solves any of the fundamental issues any scientific mind raises about basic understanding and infrastructure requirements.
You should watch Dr Steven Greer’s documentary The Lost Century if you think gravity control isn’t possible. It was mastered in the 1950s and he shows proof of this. If you think the splitting of the atom was the last biggest leap of mankind in science you’re clearly very in the dark.
@Roger
Yes, I’m familiar with the classified antigravity drive from the 1950s kept aloft by unicorn dust. It was foundational to America’s secret dragon breeding program.
Look, I get this perfect blend of scientific plausibility and physical impossibility is like catnip to people who want to believe. Can’t disprove my teapot that has been orbiting the sun, after all. That’s mental fun and games!
My beef is watching these claims get weaponized against whistleblowers who’ve witnessed real civilian casualties. That’s not just cynical counterintelligence, it’s psychological warfare with a body count.
And so… seriously, Greer’s documentary isn’t proof of secret physics. It’s a masterclass in how effectively we can still exploit a gap between technical literacy and wishful thinking. I have decades of proof of the dangers from this gap, known as fraud investigations.
And on that note I do wonder – if we really had gravity drives, wouldn’t at least some engineers suddenly start abandoning aerodynamics?
The author writes a great technical essay, but completely dismisses over 7 decades of cloaked US and world history about UFO crash landings and crash recoveries. Some of these happened well before Roswell. Many happened after Roswell.
UFOs appeared over Washington, DC on two seperate days in 1952.
An entire fleet of UFOs appeared for 3 days before an entire town after a crash recovery in Kingman, AZ in 1953. Our new military radar system had caused a gravitic-propelled large domed UFO to crash land nearby and it was recovered.
Moreover, there are seven VOLUMES of UFO crash reports, authored by Leonard H. Stringfeld, President of the Ohio chapter of MUFON in the 70s, 80s and 90s. And he’s just one researcher. The author could easily edify himself by reading them.
Roswell in 1947 is just one of many US crash landings of a UFO, where craft and NHI (beings) were recovered. It’ alleged most recoveries end up being taken to Ohio’s Wright Patterson AFB, the site of a recent “drone swarm” event -aka UFO flap.
Did the author miss whistleblower David Grusch’s sworn testimony before Congress? He testified to crashed UFOs (plural), bodies and clandestine reverse engineering programs.
Has the author read Lou Elizondo’s new book, “Imminent?”
Or is it just more convenient for this author to act just like The Church in Galileo’s day, to deny the truth of what we can see, hear and film right before our own eyes?
Perhaps the author suffers from a confidence bias, born from having a skeptical eye about all things UFO related. Perhaps his view of UFOs is based on “Mars Attacks” – ack, ack, ack!
But, this viewpoint is neither scientific nor open minded. New technologies based on elecyromagnetics emerge. Just ask Nikola Tesla.
Most certainly neither our government, nor China’s government, is ready to make an entologically shocking public announcement about re-engineering gravity-based propulsion systems derived from crashed UFOs (UAPs). There’s nothing more ultra top secret than that!
So, yes it could all be ultra top secret and then just suddenly emerge without fitting into the author’s professorial worldview. That’s the point of the book, “Imminent.”
In fact, this paper itself reads like it was commissioned by the CIA or NSA to steer away the curious. As in, “Nothing to see here, folks. Just a weather balloon.”
Finally, the author’s phraseology implies a wide array of knowledge in science, particularly in physics.
Has the author read this Aug. 1979 paper entitled, “Field Resonance Propulsion Concept?”
It not only explains HOW craft can be created with that explain what the author finds as “fantasy”, but the paper includes top down and side views of a craft not that dissimilar from some of the larger sweptback wing so-called “drones” spotted over New Jersey.
This paper, found at this link, proves the author incorrect on his assertions that the scientific community would be aware of developments in this area, unless the author is not really a member of the scientific community, or his Google machine is broken. ;)
All I had to do to find this 45 year old NASA paper was to Google “ufo propulsion einstein’s theory of general relativity.” (And there’s more where this paper came from, which I will leave to the curious and open-minded to discover for themselves.)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800010907/downloads/19800010907.pdf
@JP
Your examples all actually demonstrate to me the opposite of what you’re suggesting.
When the B-2 stealth bomber was secret, we still knew radar absorption was possible. When the SR-71 was classified, we still understood supersonic flight principles. The secrecy protected the engineering details, not fundamental physics. HEXAGON pushed boundaries, as I wrote here in 2011.
I would argue it was British inability to keep their 1930 Whittle jet engine tests secret that Nazi spies used to suddenly have a young graduate student mysteriously “invent” the same thing in Germany around the same time.
Take drone racing, because we can trace a clear progression of technological advancement through verifiable milestones. Speed records increase incrementally. Maneuverability improvements build on previous designs. Power systems evolve through documented engineering advances. Each breakthrough follows a logical path that other engineers can understand and reproduce, and is nearly impossible to keep a secret.
The 1979 NASA “Field Resonance Propulsion Concept” paper you cite actually proves my points because it was published openly, presented theoretical concepts, and acknowledged major technical challenges. Like many speculative research papers, it explored ideas but never demonstrated practical implementation. And who has been able to since? That’s how science works. A theoretical exploration is followed by experimental validation (or invalidation) that has spies crawling all over it.
This contrasts sharply with gravity drive claims. Where are the equivalent milestones? Where’s the progression of working prototypes? If such technology existed, we’d see crumbs of an advancement path we observe in racing drones where each improvement builds on proven capabilities, with reproducible results and clear engineering principles.
Instead, a 45-year silence between theoretical papers and sudden claims of fully functional technology has no intermediate steps and not a single credible leak? That’s not how technological progress works in any other field. Again, consider the Manhattan Project couldn’t hide the basic physics of nuclear fission from the global scientific community. The NSA’s most closely guarded secrets (as dumped by whomever gave them to Snowden) were about capabilities built on known physics, not physics-breaking technology.
As for Grusch’s testimony and Elizondo’s book deals they aren’t scientific evidence; such narratives still demand verification. This is especially true when classifications block independent verification. History in classification shows it is a counterintelligence tool to make fantastic elements seem plausible. When someone testifies about both conventional drone operations (which align with known capabilities and documented evidence, such as war crimes in 2019) and gravity drives (which would overturn fundamental physics), we should ask ourselves which parts might be authentic testimony and which might be introduced narrative to discredit or disclose the leaker.
I am not arguing against advanced technology obviously, since that’s the field I work in. I’m explaining that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, particularly when they skip over all the necessary development steps we see in every other technological advancement in history. And I’m explaining that sprinkling fake advances into secret programs is classic counterintelligence.
Well said, Davi; logical, clear, concise, and to the point. Social media, speculation, and wishful thinking are dominating our lives today. We need more STEM today and less fiction!
What does the author think about the the tic-tacs? Are they a disinformation op?
There’s a lot of publicly available evidence provided by official military sources and unauthorized whistle blowers that looks like proof of concept for manipulating gravity fields. Dropping from the stratosphere to sea level in a few seconds and plopping into the ocean without a splash doesn’t happen with rockets or jets. If the author believes that stuff is all fake they should say so. It certainly could be, and powers that be have all the motives listed in the article to run that kind of long con. I don’t think it’s all fake, but I don’t want to think it’s fake. Don’t ignore the elephant I can see in the room, show me it’s just a balloon.
@BDY
Even if alien made gravitic drives were to exist, understanding the engineering doesn’t stop being necessary. Today’s “impossible” aircraft face clear technical limits:
The U-2 faced “impossible” limits too, so it’s useful to study. Conventional wisdom said the max aerodynamic ceiling (wings generate lift) and engine ceiling (combustion works) intersected at 40,000 feet. Commercial planes then flew at 10-20,000 feet. Cutting edge military interceptors topped out at 40,000 feet. This is what defined “possible” when UFOs became a cover story.
Then some specific engineering breakthroughs happened:
Thin air was the problem, understood best by those who like to solve problems. Similarly, today’s observations suggest specific engineering challenges:
Gravity drive? That’s not clever engineering, considering the U-2’s thin air lessons. That’s Santa Claus and his reindeer. The person eating your cookies is maybe the one who wants you to believe the most.
The real question isn’t whether tic-tacs exist, but what puzzle or engineering problem needs work to make their observations possible.
Two things really bother me.
First, Levelsberger used such a weirdly precise phrase “gravitic propulsion” that doesn’t roll of the tongue. It’s a red flag for me because he was trying to be understood and use common language, but suddenly drops rare jargon as if he thought everyone would read that as normal. Being fed a hill of beans by someone would explain that hot air. At least he didn’t say witches on brooms.
Second, the gap between detecting gravitational waves and harnessing them for propulsion is enormous. Even with the huge LIGO breakthrough of 2015 (Nobel prize, yo), we still only detect gravitational waves from massive cosmic events like black hole mergers where signals are incredibly tiny despite the enormous energy involved. We’re supposed to worry that in ten years this event allowed someone to go straight into drone propulsion production?
Do you know what’s actually normal and in production? A dude lit fireworks up in a Cybertruck and everyone just assumed it’s another Tesla battery on fire. That’s what ten years has produced from the apartheid rocket genius now twittering his lonely brain cell away on UK politics. A literal dumpster fire that nobody wants does have a certain gravity, pulling the whole company down with it. Great job everyone.
If only top Tesla engineers had worked on gravitic propulsion instead of fart mode…
Call me skeptical.
The United States government had the brightest minds working on anti-gravity for years. Then suddenly they closed shop and said Nothing to see here! Since that moment physics has been the least funded science subject in the Government. I think they did discover something. Now what was it? I don’t know. Then take Dr, Nin Li out of Huntsville, Alabama. She published 3 papers about possible effects on gravity, then she publishes nothing else again, founds her own Anti-Gravity company, and immediately receives DOD funding. This suggest whatever was going on in that lab was ushered into a black program. They discovered new physics that they aren’t sharing with the world.
@JH
Look at how and where actual fundamental physics discoveries created ripples. These can’t be easily contained: infrastructure, trained personnel, verification processes, and supply chains that all leave traces. Classification historically protects engineering and implementations, not fundamental changes in physics. Think about it like classifying how to build the stealth of a F-117, or a Black Hawk that crashed trying to silently hover in Osama bin Laden’s compound, leaving exposed underlying principles of radar absorption.
The truth within intelligence and classification is actually more interesting than hiding physics because it’s about specific implementations as fundamental principles inevitably become known (e.g. smartphones). When we see highly classified aerospace programs they hide clever engineering and novel approaches to known physics, not revolutionary principles.
Novelty also unfortunately causes domain shifts, a societal rift in “trusted” voices, which is where predatory attention-seeking mystics and snake oil salesman (e.g. Elon Musk) make self-dealing absurd claims (Driverless by 2016! Mars landing by 2018!) to profit from grotesque fraud while adherents are tragically killed in a fire.
Early anti-gravity research programs, particularly of the 1950s-60s, are very well documented now. USAF Gravity Research for Advanced Propulsion (GRASP) and similar stuff involved leading scientists. However, closure was in fact neither sudden nor unexpected.
They produced extensive theoretical work and systematic investigation of gravitational effects. The research published openly led to advances in understanding relationships with rotating masses (as I said above about Kerr’s work). Funding didn’t decline, just shifted to massive investments in particle physics, quantum mechanics, and field theory. Funds would have been allocated into anti-gravity results just like stealth technology or superconductors if there was a good reason.
Regarding Dr. Li, it demonstrates how classification is meant to work. Genuine breakthroughs in aerospace allows researchers to continue publishing in related fields as engineering is classified. Complete publication silence means a dead end, no more waste of time, opposite to a breakthrough. This is consistent with the whole history of intelligence.
Stealth emerged from published electromagnetic theory. Hypersonic emerged from aerodynamics. Metamaterials emerged from… public university research.
Real breakthroughs leave traces in supply chains, patent patterns, and facility development. They require infrastructure that can’t be completely hidden.
Perhaps I should write more about what really happened in 2004 that could translate to fast drones being classified in 2024. Hint: engineering not physics.
“It’s hard to win an argument against a genius, but it’s impossible to win an argument against an idiot.”
Davi,
Your effort is much appreciated. Thank you for being a voice of logic and reason in an increasingly unreasonable world.
This article reads like it has an agenda to move the reader away from the possibilities and accept all of the authors assertions as fact. Unless the author knows what our SAPs and unacknowledged programs are doing then he should not be so confident. Testimony does not equal the scientific method but does suggest that something is afoot and should be investigated. His U-2 example does not give the whole picture. The Air Force actually used the U-2 spy plane to help “explain UFO sightings” during Operation Blue Book. Leaving out information that does not support your theory or cherry picking data that does is to provide evidence in ways that support pre-existing beliefs, expectations, and or hypotheses. The author here has written a perfect example of this.
@Harry
I was curious about what agenda you think I have, but your comment doesn’t actually engage with the article’s core argument. Instead of addressing how fundamental physics breakthroughs leave observable patterns throughout history, you’re essentially just saying “but what if there are secrets?” I could tell you but then I would have to…
The U-2 example you cite actually demonstrates my point – real classified aircraft programs created observable patterns in research and infrastructure, even while their specific capabilities remained secret. They were wrapped in UFO stories precisely because you can’t completely hide scientific breakthroughs, only obscure their true nature.
And yet we have visual and electronic confirmation from highly trained Navy pilots that what they described seeing cannot be explained by any other means than a vehicle that can manipulate gravity.
IE….Retired Commander Mr.David Fravor and Retired Lt. Commander Ms. Alex Dietrich.
So if you are correct in your belief that Gravitic technology is not within our (humans) grasp the only possibility left, no matter how improbable is the truth.
@Radarman
Suggesting it can only be “within our grasp” as known tech or proof of magic is exactly the kind of false choice that blocks real intelligence work. Novel capabilities emerge through observable patterns. Writing off unexplained observations as “truth” because you have no other way to process them is like saying everything with four legs has to either be a cow or a unicorn. I see some interesting prints, but maybe we should see what goes for a drink at a watering hole on a hot day before it’s time to believe in unicorn steaks for dinner? Yes, highly trained pilots are excellent observers by training, which is exactly why we should investigate properly instead of jumping to unicorns when they report rainbows. Either you know this about bad intelligence already or… you will have to learn it.