Dr. Paul LaViolette Presents Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion


Published on Dec 16, 2012 by Mothership-Productions

Dr. Paul LaViolette will discuss aerospace propulsion technologies that have been under secret military development for over 60 years. Although he previously had long been interested in UFO’s and advanced science his scientific work on gravity control theory actually began in 1985 when he encountered the work of American researcher T. Townsend Brown.

This entry was posted in Videos. Bookmark the permalink.
7764

27 Responses to Dr. Paul LaViolette Presents Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion

  1. Jolly Roger says:

    I have to tell you that this sounds like utter nonsense based on the short blurb, and I don’t have an hour and eighteen minutes to watch the movie, but I probably wouldn’t watch it even if I had absolutely nothing to do.

    “Although he previously had long been interested in UFO’s and advanced science his scientific work on gravity control theory…”

    That alone tell me this is hogwash for the Area 51 nuts. Gravity is a function of mass, which has always worked consistently, and the only way to control gravity is to change mass, or move away from it. Period.

    On to the UFO aspect of this ridiculosity, we’ve so far not been able to find any life in our galaxy other than on this planet, and the nearest galaxy to ours (Andromeda) is a solid 4 light years away. That means we’re probably not seeing any UFOs unless they’ve achieved light speed, which although is great for movies, presents the problem of collapsing matter in the real world.

    • Jolly Roger says:

      A “World Government” needs an enemy from a different world to untie and scare the population. That’s why you’re seeing a vast increase in UFO propaganda.

      70% of Americans believe in UFOs, and only 20% of Europeans do. That means the belief is based on propaganda (or “education”) rather than facts.

      • DL. says:

        Aren’t most UFOs really just black ops nonsense anyway? And aren’t most abductions simply abductions by black ops folks anyway? Hard for me to believe in extraterrestrial aliens…now angels I do believe exist, as do angel portals (CERN perhaps?)

        Jolly of course is right…you cannot have gravity without mass (part of the gravity equation)…and doesn’t everything have mass? Even electrons have mass, for pity sake!

    • BMF says:

      LOL, it’s total BS. This sort of thing reminds me of the headlines you see in tabloids at the supermarket checkout: “Top secret alien technology — REVEALED!”

      I sometimes wonder if lot of this kind of thing is deliberately disseminated by the CIA in order to discredit alternative media or anyone else who questions official narratives about terrorist attacks, etc. Yes, that’s a “conspiracy theory” in itself, but it’s based on known facts and history. We KNOW that the CIA attempts to control media. We KNOW that they’ve conducted psychological operations. So it’s entirely reasonable to suspect that they’re doing it again, even if it’s not known for certain.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be worthy of committed belief. Speculation and the questioning of official stories is important to critical thinking, but it should be driven by evidence, past experience, and a bit of Occam’s Razor.

  2. tc says:

    I’ll watch this if I get time. Right off the top it reminds me of that movie UHF and that guy named Philo with his tv show…”Secrets ets ets ets…of of of…the universe erse erse.”

  3. Enbe says:

    I understand that the title with “Secrets” and “UFO” in the description is alienating (pun intended), but I reiterate: UFO only means unidentified to the public, not extraterrestrial; and this talk is not about little green men but about advanced (post PhD) physics.

    For those who prefer reading rather than listening and watching, here is this physicist’s book publication list (these books contain equations and may be challenging for the lay reader [verrryyy challenging for me, as in beyond me]):

    LaViolette, P. A. Subquantum Kinetics: A Systems Approach to Physics and Cosmology. Niskayuna, NY: Starlane Publications, 2010, 2003; first edition 1994.

    LaViolette, P. A. Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion: Tesla, UFOs, and Classified Aerospace Technology. Rochester, VT: Bear and Co., 2008. (Also in German).

    LaViolette, P. A. Decoding the Message of the Pulsars: Intelligent Communication from the Galaxy. Rochester, VT: Bear and Co., 2006; first edition, The Talk of the Galaxy published 2000.

    LaViolette, P. A. Earth Under Fire: Humanity’s Survival of the Ice Age. Rochester, VT: Bear and Co., 2005; first edition published 1997. (Also in Italian and Russian).

    LaViolette, P. A. Genesis of the Cosmos: The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation. Rochester, VT: Bear & Co., 2004; first edition Beyond the Big Bang, 1995. (Also in Greek, Hungarian, Czech).

    LaViolette, P. A. Galactic Superwaves and Their Impact on the Earth. Niskayuna, NY: Starlane Publications, tenth edition 2009, first edition 1998; update of his Ph.D. dissertation “Galactic Explosions, Cosmic Dust Invasions, and Climatic Change.” Portland State Univ., (1983) Portland, Oregon, pp. 763.

    Bertalanffy, L. von (P. LaViolette, ed.) A Systems View of Man, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1981.

    For those further interested, the complete publications list is at http://starburstfound.org/LaViolette2/Pub1-list.html#papers.

    • Cynicles says:

      Thanks

    • Jolly Roger says:

      “UFO only means unidentified to the public, not extraterrestrial….”

      Very true, and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion (no patience in the morning), but I still don’t believe gravity is something that can be altered.

      And…. I hate to say it, but I think this guy Paul A. LaViolette’s a fraud, or at least his PhD in physics is. All I can find on his academic credentials are an M.B.A. degree from Boston College and a B.A. in Psychology from Fairfield University. It looks like he’s been in the medical hardware business all his life, and is now breaking into the science fiction business with his phoney physics PhD. (an author can claim to be anything — no law against me passing myself off as Dr. Jolly Roger, unless I start seeing patients..lol)

      http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=317651&privcapId=26093

      http://www.svlsa.com/pages/team.php?profile=10

      (and although I was considering it, I think I’ll skip the compact version too, but thanks)

    • Enbe says:

      I have generally unlimited internet access, and I pay for it, but I imagine it must suck to be time limited to read and research on the internet.

      The Paul LaViolette you found at SV Life Sciences (http://www.svlsa.com/pages/team.php?profile=10) is not the same guy as the physicist as pictured here: http://etheric.com/paul-laviolette-bio/. One might think the SV Life Sciences exec could be a cleaned up version, but all you have to do is look at the differences of their ears.

      From the physicist’s C.V. (http://www.etheric.com/LaViolette/resume-LaViolette.pdf) regarding achievement of his 1983 PhD at Portland State University:

      “Doctoral work (astronomy/climatology/geology) (1976 – 83)

      “Evaluated a variety of astronomical and geological evidence which suggest that intense cosmic ray volleys emitted from the Galactic core periodically pass through the Sun’s vicinity and affect the Earth’s climate by injecting submicron cosmic dust particles into the Solar System (LaV, 1983a, 1987a, 1990a). Fourteen a priori predictions of this theory have so far been verified.

      “Also conducted innovative research to determine whether ice-age polar ice might contain high concentrations of cosmic dust. Geochemically analyzed dust samples (1 – 500 mg) filtered from ice-age polar ice using the neutron activation analysis technique (15 different elements analyzed). Was the first to discover high concentrations of cosmic dust and gold in ice age polar ice; the results have significant implications for understanding the cause of abrupt climatic change. Carried out a total of four nuclear irradiations (LaV, 1983a-c, 1985b,c, 1987b, 1988).

      “Continued this work at the Starburst Foundation – conducted electron microscopy, energy dispersive X-ray, and mass spec. analysis of dust particles in tin-bearing polar ice dust sample (possibly of extraterrestrial origin), collaborated with researchers at OSU, CalTech, & Curtin Univ. First ever discovery of an isotopic anomaly in the element of tin.”

      Anyways, it was a good exchange, JR, and I’ll leave it at that. Have a good weekend.

      • Jolly Roger says:

        He’s a FRAUD….and you haven’t provided any links that he didn’t produce himself.

        John’s Hopkins alumni search never heard of him. Wikipedia never heard of him, and the Bloomberg link I sent has his first & last name, and middle initial, so it’s doubtful it’s a different person.

        Just do a search of his name. For someone who has allegedly done such ground-breaking work in physics, why hasn’t anyone published a word of it except himself?

        No one seems to have ever heard of this guy except himself, and his publisher (who makes money off his books). I can’t find any confirmation of his academic claims anywhere, or even any mention of him anywhere that he didn’t write.

        Then look up the name of any legitimate scientist, and you’ll see him linked to several colleges, papers published by professional journals, and plenty of confirmation of his credentials…

        • tc says:

          ” For someone who has allegedly done such ground-breaking work in physics, why hasn’t anyone published a word of it except himself?”

          Here’s an idea. Why don’t you watch the video. If you watch the video, this scientist fella answers your question for you.
          As I said in a previous comment, I don’t have the academic background to know if the guy is full of sh!t or not but the concepts he talks about are certainly interesting.
          What’s the point on dumping all over the guy when you haven’t even bothered to hear what he says?
          Bloomboig.com?
          Bloomboig? Really? C’mon.

          • Jolly Roger says:

            here’s a better idea: Before spending an hour listening to pseudo-science, or science fiction, why not spend five minutes finding out if anyone else in the scientific community agrees with this guy, can confirm what he says, or even if he knows anything about what he’s talking about?

            I can’t point you to a thousand real scientists who are full of shit, and have half the world believing that the planet is warming and it’s going to kill us all. Why would i spend an hour listening to someone who’s not even a real scientist, who is more likely to be full of shit?

            This habit of lending any credence to someone just because they can fling big words around and baffle people with BS is what we fight all the time.

            why not just believe that the planet’s warming, it will kill us all if we don’t make Al Gore a billionaire, and we need to shred the constitution to protect us from terrorists?

        • tc says:

          Your arguing yourself into a hole JR. And preaching to the converted. The self-same Global warming scientists who are full of sh!t are PUBLISHED scientists who are full of sh!t Why are they published? Because they publish sh!t. You seem to be saying that published sh!t is better than something unpublished that you haven’t even bothered to take a look at.
          Do really think Einstein was a genius and his theory of relativity is the be all and end all of everything? I don’t. I’m pretty darn sure Einstein was a lying jew and an accessory to mass murder.
          If your not even going to check out the information your discussing then why bother discussing it? Why not just dump all over it and move on?
          I have a really great idea. I’m going to respectfully agree to disagree and move on because this is starting to get stupid. Have a nice day.

          • Jolly Roger says:

            I’m not arguing myself into a hole. The point is that real scientists can be full of shit, so someone who’s not a real scientist is more likely to be full of shit if he’s claiming to be something he’s not.

      • Enbe says:

        Good morning, JR, or good afternoon for you. I just did a search on LaViolette, which was pretty easy, resulted with plenty of hits, and found the pdf for Johns Hopkins 1969 commencement program at https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/36821/commencement1969.pdf:

        pdf page 1: THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY CONFERRING OF DEGREES AT THE CLOSE OF THE NINETY-THIRD ACADEMIC YEAR JUNE 9, 1969 KEYSER QUADRANGLE HOMEWOOD BALTIMORE MARYLAND

        pdf page 19: CANDIDATES FOR DEGREES, As of June 2, 1969 BACHELOR OF ARTS

        pdf page 21 (document page 19): Paul Alex LaViolette, of Schenectady, N.Y.

        Have a good day.

        • Jolly Roger says:

          yes..you confirmed what I said..”CANDIDATES FOR DEGREES”….means he doesn’t have a degree yet. He never graduated. His PhD from Hopkins is BS.

          All that means is that he dropped out of Hopkins, or didn’t get his degree at the time of this printing.

          • Enbe says:

            The “candidates” were eligible on June 2 and graduated on June 9. Sheesh.

            The vid is only a little over an hour, but if the bytes are too expensive to stream or download on your tab, then go to the library and download it by wifi to a thumbdrive for free.

            If you can’t research yourself for whatever reason, then any discussion is useless. I’m done. Have a better week.

  4. Enbe says:

    Here’s a compact explanation:

    • Jolly Roger says:

      Sheesh? Graduates were listed. Candidates are not graduates, and nothing in that document said they were graduating on June 9th.

      And nor is it a matter of bytes being too expensive to download. It’s a matter of wasting my time listening to bullshit. You sound like you’re grasping at straws to avoid admitting that you were taken in by this nonsense, and instead of addressing the facts, you’re diverting the discussion to my slow connection speed.

      Now… since you “did the research”, then you’d be able to provide a brief synopsis of how “anti-gravity propulsion” works, right? Or did you just believe it because the liars peddling the nonsense convinced you they were smarter than you are?

  5. tc says:

    Ok, now that I’ve watched the video the guy sounds like he knows what he’s talking about but I couldn’t make much out of it because I have a PHD in jacksh!t.
    I have no doubt that the communists are hiding technology that would benefit everyone and I’m pretty sure Einstein was full of horse hocky because if he is right then that means we’re pretty much stuck here and I don’t think we are supposed to be stuck here.
    This fella could be like Alex Jewnes and steering everybody wrong but who knows? Like I said, it was alot of technical stuff I couldn’t follow very well.

  6. Jolly Roger says:

    And if ANYBODY is going to believe in “anti-gravity propulsion” I have a few bridges to sell you.

    and now you’re forcing me to watch the video, and tell you EXACTLY why it’s F*&kin’ stupid.

    • Jolly Roger says:

      I watched all I could stand of the movie, and now I’m more convinced than ever that this guy’s a complete fraud. First of all, look at the pictures again, and it IS the same guy from the medical hardware business that’s giving the lecture.

      Four minutes in he describes an electromagnetism experiment and calls it “high-voltage gravatics”, and then goes on to claim it was published in a magazine no one ever heard of.

      Twenty minutes into this stupid movie and he’s said absolutely nothing about this silly theory, but instead tells us who met whom, if Tesla were here he’d believe it, Einstein probably knew about it, and where everyone got their alleged degrees.

      Where is the science that he’s alleging? When does he unveil this theory and explain how it works instead of continually peddling the books he’s selling, and promoting himself?

      all I’m hearing in this movie is mystical double-talk that touches upon UFO’s, ancient civilizations, quotes from dead philosophers, but absolutely no scientific explanation whatsoever, except for the electromagnetism experiment that he lied about in the beginning of the movie, by calling it “high-voltage gravatics”.

      What he calls “the heart of his theory” are some “kinetic equations” (22:40) that are complete nonsense, and instead of explaining anything about them, what they mean, or what they conclude, he just says “think of them as chemical reactions at the etheric level”, which is more BS, and tells us absolutely nothing about what he’s trying to convince people of.

      Twenty five minutes in and he’s said absolutely nothing, so I’m going to assume the remaining forty minutes is more of the same.

      The audience of possibly ten people in a dark room look like they’re forced to be there, and I’m glad I’m not one of them. All he’s doing is shoveling endless BS, and he’s not even good at it.

      THIS IS NOT SCIENCE. IT’S NONSENSE.

      All he’s doing is shoveling confusing BS to non-scientists that tries to make them think he knows what he’s talking about so they’ll buy his book, join his cult, or send him money for “research”.

      Like the old saying goes: “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”, and that’s exactly what this guy is doing, and nothing more.

  7. Jolly Roger says:

    I don’t like to argue, and I only do it when an important point has to be made, and I’m sorry if I sounded a bit impatient.

    The point is here that we’re constantly bombarded with bullshit, and people have to be a lot more discerning about what they believe, or large chunks of the population will be deceived into believing all kinds of nonsense that works against our cause, and the global warming BS is only one of many pseudo-scientific claims being made by our government.

    In the case of “anti-gravity” propulsion, I’m wiling to bet that no one who DID watch the entire movie can give me a brief synopsis of how it works, and NOT because you’re not smart enough, but because lecturer never explained it. He never explained it, because it DOESN’T work. If he had some new knowledge to share with the world he would have been happy to do so, but instead all he did was a verbal dance, with no substance to anything he was saying.

    All he did was throw around a bunch of famous names, like Einstein, and Tesla, name some impressive colleges and degrees, (regardless of whether or not the people mentioned actually earned them), projected phoney formulas on the overhead projector, and filled the rest of the space with confusion, bullshit, and the lecture running off on various tangents without ever conveying any real information.

    That INTENTIONAL CONFUSION leads people to believe “I’m not smart enough to challenge this, so it’s best that I just believe it, because everyone saying this stuff is smarter than I am”.

    NO… there’s nothing about science or math that you can’t understand if you’re willing to do the work required of learning it, but NEVER just believe something because you don’t know enough to challenge it right away.

    Real science is subject to peer review, meaning that it’s not accepted as fact until several other people educated in that particular field have approved of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusions. When new discoveries are made, a scientist is eager to show it to the world, and he doesn’t try to bury the facts behind mythology and confusion.

    • tc says:

      Ok. I was going to drop this. I really was. But now I can’t. I would like for you JR to point out to me anywhere in any of my comments where I claimed to believe this scientist and everything he said as gospel. Just because I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to debunk the guy doesn’t mean I believe what he said. I even said he could be like Alex Jewnes.

      “Real science is subject to peer review, meaning that it’s not accepted as fact until several other people educated in that particular field have approved of the methodology used to arrive at the conclusions.”

      That’s funny. I know your smart enough to know that that was how global warming came about. Peer review scientists peer reviewing each others bullsh!t. So now your arguing against yourself.
      Your solution seems to be that because these peer reviewed scientists are full of sh!t, then we shouldn’t bother listening to anything anybody else has to say, either. What about the scientists who say global warming doesn’t exist? Should I listen to them and see what they have to say? What if one of them is unpublished because his so called peers don’t like what he has to say?
      Best just not to listen I guess.
      Awhile back I was listening to a radio show and these fellas were talking about how the earth is really flat. I remember laughing and shutting it off. Now just because I listened to that radio show doesn’t mean that I believe the earth is flat. Besides, Sir Bedivere proved back in 932 a.d. that the earth is really banana shaped.
      Now I’m going to throw on my anti gravity propulsion jet pack, fly over to M.I.T. and get my comments published so they can be peer reviewed by some scientist sh!t talkers.
      Have a great night.

      • Jolly Roger says:

        I never said ALL peer reviewed science was gospel, but when you have “science” that other scientists won’t even consider, it’s a good bet that it’s bullshit.

        “I would like for you JR to point out to me anywhere in any of my comments where I claimed to believe this scientist and everything he said as gospel.”

        I’d like for you to point out where that statement was directed at you, or made in response to one of your comments.

  8. Jolly Roger says:

    And one last thought on this matter: We see from the photos and video that Mr. (NOT Dr.) LaViolette definitely is the same guy from the medical hardware business, whose professional resume DOES NOT MENTION A PhD, because that’s someplace where his claims are likely to be scrutinized.

    If he did have a PhD, don’t you think it’s something he would include in his resume? Again, he’s a FRAUD. (or at least his PhD is)

    A “candidate for a degree” could include anyone enrolled in the school.

Leave a Reply