Built to Stop Asteroids, Not Tanks

to protect a tank and like armored vehicles. Was that kind of the intent in mind when you first came up with this? >> I wanted to protect the earth from asteroids. See, the whole idea it truly bothered me that you would have to send a probe years before that asteroid would even be on the path to impacting earth. >> Yeah. >> "Could I design something that could deflect this more readily? Impart such high electromagnetic energy flux.

This is before I understood that if you create enough energy densities within a localized uh locality of space-time, you could actually create {quote} the breaking of the Schwinger limit, thereby creating a possible black hole. >> Yeah. >> {unquote}, even though I don't truly believe in that terminology. It doesn't actually go to zero. It goes to the Ashtekar bounds point. Hence, remember all the stuff you wrote about. Superforce, superdensity, superintelligence. But anyway, >> Sal said it right there that you make a black hole, it doesn't go to zero.

It doesn't get annihilated. I think what he's saying there is that if you if something disappears over here, it's got to reappear somewhere else. Like we have to observe conservation. Funny enough, free energy obeys conservation of energy, believe it or not. Because free energy is just another reservoir that we're tapping into. So, it's like we just don't notice there's energy there.

We don't notice this balloon is already filled up. If the balloon's filled up, we just have to push the air out of the balloon and we get free push. Or if the if the air leaks, whatever. So, um crap. Lost my other train of thought. Anyway, I'll come back to it.

Here we go. >> Wait, I'm digressing. So, let's go back to the case in point. The whole idea is that if you bring this high um high energy electromagnetic field generator close to the asteroid, you're able to deflect it with extremely high electromagnetic field focused on a certain locality. If you just Say the asteroid is I don't know, one one angle Well, that's a a couple of thousand miles away from Earth. Let's say that. I was about to I was about to give a a very unusual um factor of distance, but that would I mean, it would defy the purpose of this idea.

So, the whole idea is you'll be able to deflect it just by having it say ride with it, ride with the asteroid, and focusing this electromagnetic energy flux on a on a particular point. If you are just able to do a a couple of centimeters. If it's so far away from Earth, it will never hit it. So, yeah. >> Yeah, no that actually You know, this is interesting because true story here, I read Sal's patents, papers back in 2018 2017, whenever they came out. And I didn't understand the physics, but from a layman's understanding you know, I'm seeing like it could be plausible.

The thing that was so impressive to me was that exactly what he said there. He says in the paper in his high frequency gravity wave paper that you could annihilate an asteroid with this or planetoid, it says specifically. And I remember thinking, "Holy crap, somebody figured out a way where asteroids are just a non-factor." Like we have all these movies in the '90s about asteroids wiping out Earth, and we feel like we're this helpless ball speck, and if any asteroid were to hit us, it was going to be game over.

I was even convinced we were going to get hit by an asteroid in my lifetime and it would be game over. And then Sal rolls up and says, "Nah." Sal rolls up and says, "Nah, we can just wipe them out." And I'm like, "Wow, that's incredible." And it wasn't until I saw the MH370 videos where I realized exactly what he's talking about. Because you realize if you have that technology, asteroids are no threat whatsoever.

No threat whatsoever. I mean, you don't even need to annihilate the asteroid. You just have to change its course a little bit. If you have full-on gravity manipulation technology, that's not issue. So, if we end up getting hit by an asteroid, that is a false flag. People like to say talk about false flags, 9/11 is a false flag, that this and that thing and that thing are a false flag.

If we get hit by an asteroid, it's a legit false flag. >> [laughter] >> Any asteroid that hits anywhere in this world, the United States let it happen. We let it happen 100%. >> That in itself is an incredibly interesting idea. >> Apophis, which at the time was said if it goes for a certain keyhole, I believe it was in 2004, I could be wrong. Anyway, it was in the 20s. Uh Mhm, uh 20, you know, um in the 2020s, I believe. Then it >> Uh Sal, I'll help you out.

2029 and 2037, I believe are the years that Apophis is supposed to come very close to us. Actually, in 2037 and 2036, it comes very close. Apophis comes closer than any asteroid has ever come of its size. It comes within our geostationary satellites. Okay? Geostationary satellites are about 40,000 km away.

And Apophis is going to come closer than that. And if they're off by even 1 or 2%, then it can hit us straight on. If they're off by just 1 or 2%, those aren't odds that Yes, it's a small percent. I don't like those percentages. The good news is, I know we have space-time manipulation technology, so there's absolutely no way in hell we should be getting hit by Apophis. So, specifically, if I get hit by Apophis, like I'm driving down the street and the freaking asteroid hits me, chat, you know the CIA did that Look, I'm I'm talking to the the right now.

If that happens to me, that was no accident. They can control space-time. Meteorites and asteroids don't randomly hit Ashton Forbes, okay? Just want to be clear about that. Yeah, save Lulu chat. >> It would most likely part of it would impact in 2029, otherwise in 2036 for sure. And have you noticed almost nothing, nothing is being written about Apophis lately?

Which truly has me a little apprehensive, especially since >> Looks like >> the billionaires have started to build bunkers. >> Well, so let me if it's okay, let me break down that for for anybody in the audience who >> Oh, sorry about that. >> has been following this guy. >> Okay, well we already broke it down, let's keep going. >> I've seen photos of these patent images. They floating around Instagram, floating around Facebook, they pop up on Twitter all the time. They're used everywhere. This invention inspired people. So, what can you tell me about it? >> Yeah, people that said they actually saw the craft.

It's It's my most viral one. For some reason, there was a I forget um I think it was a Professor Simon that did one that was a couple of months Yeah, in the beginning. It It really went viral. He He's a great um He's very good with the camera. >> crack me up how much they're like I don't know. Something about their understanding of social media. Like they just get so excited.

Oh, got it did a couple million views. Like I guess for me it's just like I don't know. It's kind of like in poker you got to not care about the money if you want to win at poker. It's like in social media you got to not care about the views if you want to win at at social media. You got to just do your own thing, not be audience captured. But I am happy for Sal and I'm happy that his stuff has gotten more views.

And the reason why I promote is cuz it's true, number one. And number two, this is I mean people This is what people ask for. Like they say, "Hey, give me two videos in perfect synchronization of some UFOs." And I say, "Here you go." And it's also military. And they go, "No, that's fake.

That's visual effects." Like, "Okay, fine. You're retarded." And it's like, "Okay, give me proof. If if this technology was real, there'd be patents for it." Okay, here's like five patents here.

"No, if that was real, he would be He would be like working for the government." He does. He works for the Navy. "Okay, but if he was if he was legit though, the defense contractors would have he did he worked for special projects in Northrop Grumman. It's like oh. Yeah.

Right? This is what they all ask for. And then when you get it, they're like, oh, I know. >> Explanation very much alongside just like Ash and Forbes. Speaking of those three orbs. >> Hey, hey, hey. That's me, chat. Look at that, right on cue.

Didn't even know he was going to say that. >> That good. Take that asteroid out of commission. But anyway, yeah, so um You know >> Well, that that >> you that the idea was what I I got the idea from watching the Imperial uh raider was it in in in Star Wars. >> Uh >> Do you remember Do you remember uh Darth Vader's >> Yeah, yeah, the the flagship. >> Not the the flagships. The flagships.

All of a sudden, you'd hear this incredible hum and the thing would just disappear into what we understand now as being the conditioned vacuum ala Herman David Froning, ala Paul Murad, so many so many greats came before this. I mean >> How funny is it that it's just actually Star Wars? Star Wars is actually correct. Now guys, I don't give a what physics is the true physics or not. I also don't give a what happened to the plane. It just happened to be teleported.

It is what it is. But isn't it damn weird that Star Trek and Star Wars both ended up being correct on how basically alien physics ends up working? I mean, what are the odds that these science fiction shows get the physics exactly correct? Like, yep, you really do jump through hyperspace and then reappear on the other side like huh. >> The um electrostatic levitator it was really thought of as possibly a gravitational disruption field that ensued before we understood ionic. And still, I'll tell you the truth, under certain circumstances, it might not be ionic heating that's doing that's performing that mechanism.

So, let's just leave it there. >> Yeah. >> Well, so in this one you've got microwave emitters in it. You've got a resonant cavity. Um you're using noble gases. What are some of the mechanisms that you envisioned in terms of lift here? >> It's not uh truly lift. It's more of how do I get Remember how the Imperial radar would just vanish into {quote} {unquote} the condition. >> It's not lift. Isn't that exactly it?

That's [snorts] exactly how people are misunderstanding it. They say, "Well, how are you getting the lift?" Well, let me show you a video, guys, to help you understand this for my normies that are out there. I want you to tell me if what I'm about to show you is anti-gravity. Okay? You tell me if this Veritasium video is anti-gravity, okay?

This is a like 40-lb flywheel. So, 40 lb is a lot of weight. It's so much weight that you most likely cannot lift it up over your head with one hand unless you're pretty built, pretty jacked, unless you're super jacked. So, let's watch this guy just lift it over his head with ease. >> Release my left hand and holding only with my right hand at the end of the shaft, I'll try to lift it up over my head. This is a 40-lb, 19-kg flywheel. Ready?

Here we go. 3 2 1 Beautiful. Let's go again. In 3 2 1 >> Not only is he lifting it over his head, he's lifting it over his head parallel, which is the hardest possible way as opposed to lifting it straight up like this. He's lifting it is like this with no effort. Is that anti-gravity?

I think a lot of people would say no. They would say no, that's not anti-gravity. That's just like you know, normal um right hand rule in in physics. And I'd say, well, what if we're just looking at anti-gravity the wrong way? I mean, from a practical perspective, that's anti-gravity. From a practical perspective, that wheel is lighter. And you would say, if you disagree, I'd say, well, you try to lift that up.

Try to lift that up without the wheel spinning and good luck. You're never going to be able to do that. I mean, maybe you can, but you get the point. So, is it precession producing anti-gravity? What Sal is saying here is that we're not we don't need to try to change the physics that we have. We need to look at the problem differently.

What we're doing is we're not changing the actual mass of the object. We're changing the space-time around it. We're not actually making the object lighter. We're just making things move towards up. We're making their paths forward in time move towards up. >> Yeah. >> Remember the especially the writing of Herman David Froning, how he describes there's a great AIAA paper in which he truly describes how this would occur. To us, this thing would become invisible.

It would no longer be there because it's now no longer within our frame of reference. >> Okay. >> However, just remember, what does plasma do when oscillated at certain frequencies? I will not say more, but I refer you to my equation. >> Okay, we're paying attention. What does plasma do when oscillated at certain frequencies? Writing it down. I think he's speaking to oscillating plasma bringing down the Schwinger limit.

And I think we're about to find in the papers that are coming out, including that Blake Wakefield accelerator, that all this resonating oscillating plasma they're going to have a major breakthrough where they're going to find space-time manipulation. And I'm going to go, I told you so because I'm from the future, duh. How else could I know all that? >> In the equation one of the I would say the most important equations of the PI sub 8 >> 789 >> S max so basically the magnitude of the pointing vector maximum is on the order of >> Okay, so pointing vector. >> Remember pointing vector?

I just mentioned the pointing vector in regards to the rare tasseled video. That's they that's how they explain where that force is coming from this anti-gravity. They say it's just the pointing vector. Okay. >> Sigma sub S the surface charge density divide to the squared so to the second power divided by epsilon sub zero. Epsilon sub zero remember it's the permittivity. >> permittivity >> Right? Uh the permittivity of free space.

So it's on the order of 10 to the minus 11. It's on the bottom so okay. Now uh the R sub omega times omega squared times T O P That's one of the equations that's almost in all my papers including the one that I refer to most because in my opinion it's incredibly important. I was able to publish in I triple E transaction on plasma science 2019. The paper was entitled or rather titled um plasma compression fusion device. >> Okay. >> Nuclear thermonuclear or rather nuclear fusion at ignition temperatures a serve a self-burning plasma. So we're talking about very high Qs.

Now >> Dude, what in the is he talking about right here? He's just randomly talking about ignition fusion with high Q factor over unity. And so the equations that he just listed off he says on one side you have surface charge density. So you imagine what is surface charge density? Imagine electrostatic charge. So right now my hair is normal, right?

But if I take this, that right there. See my hair sticking up? I don't The surface charge density would be if you're building up a bunch of electrons onto this. Same exact idea. So Sal is saying if you can build up a whole bunch of charge, that's going to have once I think we that's one side of the equation. And then on the other Or no, maybe it's the surface the charge times the frequency divided by the permittivity.

So permittivity, if we can change the permittivity, we can change we can vastly change this number. And if we can change the frequency, we can also vastly change the outcome of this. This is why increasing the frequency makes this number go big or decreasing the permittivity also makes that number go big. >> Under certain vibrational frequencies, I won't say more than that because then again, we're not here to educate and enable the enemy, especially nowadays. >> Robert Flint >> They can get some ideas out of this truly fascinating, which is another pet peeve of mine.

If they do not have this disruptive technology that I'm referring to, why are they not giving me a lab and a team to prove that this is real? Anyway, just >> you now do you do you think I mean, I guess that would be a and actually I have this as a later slide in the back, but >> So that's really big and what I think it was that Gerald in the chat saying that the reason why fusion is so important is cuz you need huge energy density to manipulate space-time. That's undeniable from Einstein. That's why we need fusion. Fusion has the highest energy densities.

So that's why when you're looking for a zero-point energy tap, you're looking for a fusion reactor. That's why plasma is connected to this. Nobody had put these pieces together before, but now we are. And Sal said right there, he said, "If this isn't real, why aren't they giving me a lab to test it? If or no, he says if they don't already have this, why aren't they giving me a lab to test it? Salsbury pretty clear here.

He's saying Jay Stratton, Hal Puthoff, those guys already built this for the government. They don't They're not interested in being publicly discovered. In fact, they've been covering it up publicly so that it doesn't get discovered while they're pretending to be the investigators. >> Do Do you think that some of these patent ideas have been taken and developed into working technologies? >> I would not say these in particular. I would say that we've had some of these technologies since the 1950s. Remember the whole idea um >> Yes. >> the second coming. The G engines are coming.

And all of a sudden, complete silence. Especially from mainstream physics. When you have people like Wheeler, Cecil, DeWitt, and her great husband, Bryce DeWitt. We're talking some of the top physicists. Many of them have worked in the Manhattan Project. >> Yeah. >> I truly believe those are Manhattan Project for what we understand today as UAPs, what truly is unacknowledged F&O objects. >> Dude, this is what is crazy right now. >> Yeah. And I truly believe we You know, this whole idea is that we reversed engineer this from existing I'm not saying it is quite possible we did both.

But I think this was our interpretation of the physics. We achieved it via electromagnetic means. Remember the great Theodor Kaluza >> This is what's so crazy that is that they've been hiding this for decades, dude.