Board Logo
« Could a rock star lead to disclosure? »

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Feb 24th, 2018, 9:54pm



« Previous Topic | Next Topic »
Pages: 1 2  Notify Send Topic Print
 veryhotthread  Author  Topic: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?  (Read 1938 times)
dave54
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1259
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #3 on: Oct 16th, 2016, 12:27pm »

on Oct 16th, 2016, 10:39am, bonehead wrote:
... and also had a hand in the B-2 Stealth bomber - which supposedly uses some anti-gravity technology in its design..

Bonehead


No alien technology in the B2.

My cousin, now retired, was an engineer that worked on the B2. Mainly the flight control systems and holds a couple of patents on the control designs he developed. He doesn't talk much about the B2, still some secret technology in it, but he does say design idea goes back to WWII. Most people would be surprised at how much 'old school' is in the plane. The purpose of the plane is radar stealth, and some technology from the 1950's and 60's actually has a smaller radar footprint than the modern designs and materials. Nothing alien in it.
User IP Logged

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post is 100% gluten free and made with recycled electrons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sys_Config
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Someone is Messing With Force


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5558
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #4 on: Oct 16th, 2016, 12:38pm »

on Oct 16th, 2016, 12:27pm, dave54 wrote:
No alien technology in the B2.

My cousin, now retired, was an engineer that worked on the B2. Mainly the flight control systems and holds a couple of patents on the control designs he developed. He doesn't talk much about the B2, still some secret technology in it, but he does say design idea goes back to WWII. Most people would be surprised at how much 'old school' is in the plane. The purpose of the plane is radar stealth, and some technology from the 1950's and 60's actually has a smaller radar footprint than the modern designs and materials. Nothing alien in it.

I believe you!.When I was a teenager one of my favorite books was Failsafe and gave me an eyeopener how we could fool pursuit jets into following multiple bogeys..Radar is the big thing even now. I recall the the suppression of Iraqs power grid In Iraq..I am wondering if the recent alleged missle attack in in Yemen "forcing" the ship to fire on targets that didnt materialize after is in that camp. Submitting radar reports that there were objects that were not there is a tool both sides have and can be used for political purposes or a false story line.
« Last Edit: Oct 16th, 2016, 12:45pm by Sys_Config » User IP Logged

Breaking the Matrix ..More than UFO related..Its Life Related
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #5 on: Oct 17th, 2016, 11:23am »

on Oct 16th, 2016, 12:27pm, dave54 wrote:
No alien technology in the B2.

My cousin, now retired, was an engineer that worked on the B2. Mainly the flight control systems and holds a couple of patents on the control designs he developed. He doesn't talk much about the B2, still some secret technology in it, but he does say design idea goes back to WWII. Most people would be surprised at how much 'old school' is in the plane. The purpose of the plane is radar stealth, and some technology from the 1950's and 60's actually has a smaller radar footprint than the modern designs and materials. Nothing alien in it.


Thanks Dave. I must point out that I never said anything about "alien technology" on the B-2. I said anti-gravity. That is not necessarily "alien".

Certainly Townsend Brown was involved in this kind of research as far back as the 1950s. And, according to Paul LaViolette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion" Brown's attempts to sell his technology to the U.S. Navy met with willful disinterest. The implication being that they already had technology beyond Brown's baby steps. Again, this was in the 1950s.

But the question does remain: if not from Townsend Brown, then where did the military get this technology from?

Here are some links that confirm my assertion:

http://starburstfound.org/electrograviticsblog/?p=1

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_flyingobjects44.htm

https://amunaor.com/2012/07/26/obama-declassifies-anti-gravity-technology/

The presence of anti-gravity technology in the B-2 bomber is a story that has been around since the early '90s when certain people that had worked on the aircraft released information about this technology. They thought that it was foolish to have technology that could so markedly improve the efficiency of conventional aircraft. This technology that has been in use from the 1980s, at least, could revolutionize the airline industry, reducing fuel consumption by one-third or more.

Again, all of this can be read about in LaViolette's book.

Although Rich never came out to say that the secret technologies he was dealing in were back-engineered from UFO crashes, he also never discouraged my former boss from thinking that they were. Indeed, he left tantalizing clues suggesting that such might well be the case. And that was as much as he could say without breaking his security oaths.

At any rate, the use of anti-gravity technology on the B-2 Stealth Bomber is a story that has been around for over 20 years now. The above links are but the tip of the iceberg for this story.

Alien or not? I don't know. But the technology is a fact. We can only speculate about where it came from.....

Bonehead

User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Cliff-67
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 2060
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #6 on: Oct 17th, 2016, 12:16pm »


"Certain" craft depend on this to stay airborne :


https://giphy.com/gifs/Z5FxTUlcUtyJW/fullscreen


User IP Logged

NEE NED ZB 6TNN DEIBEDH SIEFI EBEEE SSIEI ESEE SEEE !!
INT21
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 3206
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #7 on: Oct 17th, 2016, 12:43pm »

Bonehead,

...But the technology is a fact..

Ah well, but is it really ?

I think you have been reading too much into these old news items.

We don't seem to be tripping up over anti gravity devices at the moment.

And yes, I did read all the links.

HAL
INT21
User IP Logged

Isn't it midnight, on the other side of the world.
Do you remember
the face of a pretty girl ?
dave54
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1259
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #8 on: Oct 17th, 2016, 5:00pm »

on Oct 17th, 2016, 12:43pm, INT21 wrote:
...And yes, I did read all the links.

HAL
INT21


Also note: none of those links would be considered reliable or factual sources.
User IP Logged

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post is 100% gluten free and made with recycled electrons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sys_Config
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

Someone is Messing With Force


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 5558
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #9 on: Oct 17th, 2016, 5:16pm »

iNTERESTING EXCERPTS FROM OLD CLIPPINGS
https://www.wired.com/1998/03/antigravity/
Bob Park is a physics professor at the University of Maryland. When he's pressed to say something about Podkletnov's work, he comments: "Well, we know that we can create shields for other fields, such as electromagnetic fields; so in that sense I suppose that a gravity shield does not violate any physical laws. Still, most scientists would be reluctant to conclude anything publicly from this." Ironically, Park has made a name for himself by debunking "fringe" science in a weekly column for the American Physical Society's Web page. If scientists are reluctant to "conclude anything publicly," it's partly because they know they may be stigmatized by critics such as Park.

Of course, reflexive conservatism isn't the whole story. Many physicists are skeptical about gravity shielding because they believe that it conflicts with Einstein's general theory of relativity. According to George Smoot, a renowned professor of physics at UC Berkeley who collaborated on an essay that won a Gravity Research Foundation award, "If gravity shielding is going to be consistent with Einstein's general theory, you would need tremendous amounts of mass and energy. It's far beyond the technology we have today."

On the other hand, theories developed by Giovanni Modanese, Ning Li, and Douglas Torr portray a superconductor as a giant "quantum object" which might be exempt from Smoot's criticism, since Einstein's general theory has nothing to say about quantum effects. As Smoot himself admits, "The general theory is widely revered because Einstein wrote it, and it happens to be very beautiful. But the general theory is not entirely compatible with quantum mechanics, and sooner or later it will have to be modified."

He also says that the nonlinear spin of gravity particles – "gravitons" – makes calculations extremely difficult. "When you add a spinning disc," he says, "the equations become impossible to solve."

This means that gravity shielding cannot be disproved mathematically. Even Bob Park, the resident skeptic, shies away from describing it as "impossible," because "there have been things that we thought were impossible, which actually came to pass." Gregory Benford, a professor of physics at UC Irvine who also writes science fiction, echoes this and takes it a step further. "There's nothing impossible about gravity shielding," he says. "It just requires a field theory that we don't have yet. Anyone who says it's inconceivable is suffering from a lack of imagination."

When I first started reading about gravity modification, I was skeptical. Most likely, I thought, Podkletnov's experimental procedures were flawed.

A year later, I'm not so sure. Having questioned him in detail for several hours, I believe that he did his work in a careful, responsible fashion. I'm no longer willing to write him off as an eccentric suffering from wishful thinking. I believe he observed something – although the exact nature of it remains unclear.

And so, frustratingly, there's no conclusive ending to this long, strange story – at least until someone provides independent verification. In the meantime, there's only one thing we can do:

Wait.

Thanks to John Cramer for factual orientation and Robert Becker for theoretical background. Pete Skeggs participated in my visit to NASA and offered extremely generous help.
http://www.scansite.org/scan.php?pid=158

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1064.htm

Boeing, the world’s largest aircraft manufacturer, has admitted it is working on experimental anti-gravity projects that could overturn a century of conventional aerospace propulsion technology if the science underpinning them can be engineered into hardware.

As part of the effort, which is being run out of Boeing’s Phantom Works advanced research and development facility in Seattle, the company is trying to solicit the services of a Russian scientist who claims he has developed anti-gravity devices in Russia and Finland. The approach, however, has been thwarted by Russian officialdom.

The Boeing drive to develop a collaborative relationship with the scientist in question, Dr Evgeny Podkletnov, has its own internal project name: ‘GRASP’ — Gravity Research for Advanced Space Propulsion.

A GRASP briefing document obtained by JDW sets out what Boeing believes to be at stake. "If gravity modification is real," it says, "it will alter the entire aerospace business."

GRASP’s objective is to explore propellentless propulsion (the aerospace world’s more formal term for anti-gravity), determine the validity of Podkletnov’s work and "examine possible uses for such a technology". Applications, the company says, could include space launch systems, artificial gravity on spacecraft, aircraft propulsion and ‘fuelless’ electricity generation — so-called ‘free energy’.

But it is also apparent that Podkletnov’s work could be engineered into a radical new weapon. The GRASP paper focuses on Podkletnov’s claims that his high-power experiments, using a device called an ‘impulse gravity generator’, are capable of producing a beam of ‘gravity-like’ energy that can exert an instantaneous force of 1,000g on any object — enough, in principle, to vaporise it, especially if the object is moving at high speed.

Podkletnov maintains that a laboratory installation in Russia has already demonstrated the 4in (10cm) wide beam’s ability to repel objects a kilometre away and that it exhibits negligible power loss at distances of up to 200km. Such a device, observers say, could be adapted for use as an anti-satellite weapon or a ballistic missile shield. Podkletnov declared that any object placed above his rapidly spinning superconducting apparatus lost up to 2% of its weight.

Although he was vilified by traditionalists who claimed that gravity-shielding was impossible under the known laws of physics, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) attempted to replicate his work in the mid-1990s. Because NASA lacked Podkletnov’s unique formula for the work, the attempt failed. NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama will shortly conduct a second set of experiments using apparatus built to Podkletnov’s specifications.

Boeing recently approached Podkletnov directly, but promptly fell foul of Russian technology transfer controls (Moscow wants to stem the exodus of Russian high technology to the West).

The GRASP briefing document reveals that BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin have also contacted Podkletnov "and have some activity in this area".

It is also possible, Boeing admits, that "classified activities in gravity modification may exist". The paper points out that Podkletnov is strongly anti-military and will only provide assistance if the research is carried out in the ‘white world’ of open development.
User IP Logged

Breaking the Matrix ..More than UFO related..Its Life Related
http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #10 on: Oct 19th, 2016, 11:43am »

on Oct 17th, 2016, 5:00pm, dave54 wrote:
Also note: none of those links would be considered reliable or factual sources.


Those were only three of a large number of sources. But back to the original source, Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 9, 1992:

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

The article we are after is: ‘Black World’ engineers, Scientists Encourage Using Highly Classified Technology for Civil Applications. The link can be seen at the bottom of the page.

Sadly, it cannot be read without subscribing to the magazine. "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (sometimes called "Aviation Leak" by insiders) is an industry magazine aimed at folks that work inside the aviation industry. Most of the articles deal with military aviation.

Here is a quote from LaViolette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion":


"Aviation Week obtained its information about the B-2 from a small group of renegade West Coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects, which were defense projects so secret that even their very existence is classified.... They took the risk because they felt that it was important for economic reasons (I would suggest that environmental concerns would be the more important reasons for revealing this info) that efforts be made to declassify certain black technologies for commercial use. Two of these individuals said that their civil rights had been blatantly abused (in the name of security), either to keep them quiet or to prevent them form leaving the tightly controlled black R&D community.

Several months after Aviation Week published the article, security personnel from the black world went into high gear. That sector of the black R&D community received very strong warnings, and as a result, the group of scientists broke off contact with the magazine."

I was around when this story first got out. It is not BS. Of course, you guys can believe whatever you like. But to just fob it off as bogus is prejudicial and does not fit with the information that is out there.

I would recommend reading LaViolette's book as it has much technical and historical information that puts this story in its proper perspective. My comments concerning Ben Rich come from my own personal experience. I was privy to many conversations between him and my boss. Rich was a serious guy and he was not making stuff up. He was there and, sadly, he took most of his secrets to the grave.

But to get back to my point: the head of the Lockheed Skunk Works would be a man in the know. End of story.....

Bonehead
« Last Edit: Oct 19th, 2016, 11:45am by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Suzy
Guest
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #11 on: Oct 19th, 2016, 12:01pm »

on Oct 19th, 2016, 11:43am, bonehead wrote:
Those were only three of a large number of sources. But back to the original source, Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 9, 1992:

http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/19920309

The article we are after is: ‘Black World’ engineers, Scientists Encourage Using Highly Classified Technology for Civil Applications. The link can be seen at the bottom of the page.

Sadly, it cannot be read without subscribing to the magazine. "Aviation Week and Space Technology" (sometimes called "Aviation Leak" by insiders) is an industry magazine aimed at folks that work inside the aviation industry. Most of the articles deal with military aviation.

Here is a quote from LaViolette's book "Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion":


"Aviation Week obtained its information about the B-2 from a small group of renegade West Coast scientists and engineers who were formerly associated with black research projects, which were defense projects so secret that even their very existence is classified.... They took the risk because they felt that it was important for economic reasons (I would suggest that environmental concerns would be the more important reasons for revealing this info) that efforts be made to declassify certain black technologies for commercial use. Two of these individuals said that their civil rights had been blatantly abused (in the name of security), either to keep them quiet or to prevent them form leaving the tightly controlled black R&D community.

Several months after Aviation Week published the article, security personnel from the black world went into high gear. That sector of the black R&D community received very strong warnings, and as a result, the group of scientists broke off contact with the magazine."

I was around when this story first got out. It is not BS. Of course, you guys can believe whatever you like. But to just fob it off as bogus is prejudicial and does not fit with the information that is out there.

I would recommend reading LaViolette's book as it has much technical and historical information that puts this story in its proper perspective. My comments concerning Ben Rich come from my own personal experience. I was privy to many conversations between him and my boss. Rich was a serious guy and he was not making stuff up. He was there and, sadly, he took most of his secrets to the grave.

But to get back to my point: the head of the Lockheed Skunk Works would be a man in the know. End of story.....

Bonehead


Ya' never know, it might be found someday tucked away in a file marked "C" on a private server... grin


wink
User IP Logged

dave54
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1259
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #12 on: Oct 20th, 2016, 12:48pm »

I called my cousin back and asked about antigravity and electric fields. He laughed. He then told me he knew of the anti-gravity stories circulating around the internet. It is true the B2 use fields around some of the surfaces, but has nothing to do with anti-gravity. The object is to produce a thin boundary layer of electrostatic air on the surface, reducing turbulence from every small opening, rivet, or irregularity in the skin. This improves flight efficiency through normal aerodynamics. It also slightly reduces a radar return. Anti gravity has nothing to do with it. It is not a new idea. Many aircraft used it. In recent years improvements in materials technology and wing and fuselage design has somewhat left it behind. He wondered why it was still called 'black' technology when everyone now knows about, and the U.S. stole it from the Russians during the arms race of the Cold War.

He has been retired for several years now, and admitted it is possible a new wrinkle has been found, but he doubts it. He still has his contacts in the industry and no one has mentioned anything about anti-gravity other than the same conspiracy theories that keep popping up. Such a technology would not remain secret very long. The civilian applications would be too immense.
User IP Logged

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This post is 100% gluten free and made with recycled electrons.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #13 on: Oct 23rd, 2016, 12:18pm »

Hello Dave,

I have to admit that when I first heard about the B-2 technology, I too thought that "anti-gravity" was a bit of a bridge too far. The electrostatic ion field you describe is, in fact, exactly the technology that LaViolette describes in his book. The part left out of your cousin's description are the bits about the electrostatic probes in the jet exhausts. This coupled with the leading edge electrified fields, create an sort of "repelling" envelope around the entire aircraft - not just a boundary layer reduction in drag.

I do remember when the B-2 was first revealed to the public, that photos of the aft end of the aircraft were completely off limits. There were "top-secret" things at the back of the aircraft that were not cleared for release at that time. I do not know if that is still in place all these years later.

And i should point out that the technology you describe also matches the work of Townsend Brown. There must be a modicum of anti-gravity in the technology since that is specifically what Brown was after in the first place. At any rate whether anti-gravity or not, everybody agrees that the technology DOES offer a substantial improvement in performance and flight economy. Adding such a technology to airline fleets, for instance, could reduce fuel consumption and flight economy substantially and reduce harmful emissions in the environment.

That was the main point of my original statements concerning this. To my knowledge, this technology has not found its way into civil aircraft - despite the fact that the technology has been in constant use since the late 1980s. That is nearly 30 years of hamstringing the planet - all for a little "edge" in military performance.

This is the kind of sociopathic behavior I have come to expect from our government operatives. Our planet becomes more ecologically compromised by the day, while the government only sees the military worthy of such an edge. It is criminal and inexcusable. If what you say about the pressure of potential civil applications is true, then where is the technology being used in civil aviation today?

Meanwhile, Tom DeLonge is still maintaining that he has the goods:

http://pigeonsandplanes.com/news/2016/10/tom-delonge-ufo

I only hope that his promises bear fruit. As I said before, past experience shows that all such promises tend to fizzle out in the end. It would be nice if things are different this time.

One can only hope.....

Bonehead
« Last Edit: Oct 23rd, 2016, 12:26pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #14 on: Oct 15th, 2017, 12:45pm »

Pardon the revival of an old thread, but this story seems to be moving along now.

Does Delonge have the goods? Here is an article by journalist Leslie Kean suggesting he does:


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fmr-manager-of-dod-aerospace-threat-program-ufos_us_59de2f4be4b0b992a8214874

While I question DeLonge's methodology, I am sympathetic to his crusade. Posing "disclosure" as a commercial enterprise (as Delonge does) immediately puts the whole thing into question. But hell, in this twisted present time, pretty much everything has become corrupted with self-serving, subversive and discursive motives. Truth, lies and manipulations all share our mind-space on an equal footing. Truth (which I have come to believe is subjective) has become more relative than ever.

Is this disclosure? Not really. Elizondo is far from the first government operative claiming to be in the know that has said, unequivocally, that UFOs are real. His credentials certainly put him in the right place to know. And his claim is a step in the right direction.

DeLonge has fired his first shot across the bow of general ignorance. Only time will tell if his claims hit pay-dirt or, are just the rantings of another fool urinating into the wind.

C'mon Tom, where's the beef? I, for one, would like to know....

Keep your eyes on this story folks. It has the potential to be the one we are waiting for - or, just another in a long line of disappointments....

But I am hopeful. kiss

Bonehead
« Last Edit: Oct 15th, 2017, 12:48pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
bonehead
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

"All descriptions of reality are temporary hypotheses."


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1679
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #15 on: Oct 15th, 2017, 1:02pm »

While I remain hopeful, my man Billy Cox is less sanguine....

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15590/still-looks-like-rain/#comment-497340

Kevin Randle shares my misgivings about DeLonge's project, but carries them all the way to full-blown rejection....

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/10/tom-delonge-and-ufos.html

Just because DeLonge is a rich dude with a serious yen for long ducats does not necessarily compel me to write him off completely.... yet.

How much slack should I cut him?? huh

Bonehead
« Last Edit: Oct 15th, 2017, 1:19pm by bonehead » User IP Logged

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible."
ALBERT EINSTEIN
ZETAR
Mod Director
Global Moderator
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2


PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 8657
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #16 on: Oct 16th, 2017, 09:34am »

BONEY OPINES,

"Keep your eyes on this story folks."..." I am hopeful."

User Image

SHALOM...Z
User IP Logged

GREAT SPIRITS ALWAYS ENCOUNTER THE MOST VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE MINDS E=MC2
Raf
Gold Member
ImageImageImageImageImage


member is offline

Avatar




PM

Gender: Male
Posts: 1407
xx Re: Could a rock star lead to disclosure?
« Reply #17 on: Oct 23rd, 2017, 08:52am »

on Oct 15th, 2017, 1:02pm, bonehead wrote:
While I remain hopeful, my man Billy Cox is less sanguine....

http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/15590/still-looks-like-rain/#comment-497340

Kevin Randle shares my misgivings about DeLonge's project, but carries them all the way to full-blown rejection....

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2017/10/tom-delonge-and-ufos.html


Just because DeLonge is a rich dude with a serious yen for long ducats does not necessarily compel me to write him off completely.... yet.

How much slack should I cut him?? huh

Bonehead


I've been following this too. The cynic in me says that all those insiders are there to keep DeLonge busy and off track. But I hope not.

I feel generous. So I'll give him a year of slack.
User IP Logged

The boldness of asking deep questions may require unforeseen flexibility if we are to accept the answers. ~ Brian Greene
Pages: 1 2  Notify Send Topic Print
« Previous Topic | Next Topic »

Donate $6.99 for 50,000 Ad-Free Pageviews!

| |

This forum powered for FREE by Conforums ©
Sign up for your own Free Message Board today!
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Conforums Support | Parental Controls