Claims of Advanced Tech Recovered from UFOs

[Mendel]

Nah, it's all connected Pais, this seems like the best thread.

It's just a short note as per below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Pais#:~:text=The patent was initially rejected, but was,the Chinese military were developing similar technology.

Thank you.
There are massive red flags in that wikipedia article:

• He reported that he began in 2015 to publish his patents "after rejections from academic publishing"
• No working prototype of any of the patented inventions was ever developed.
• The patents have been met with widespread skepticism from the physics community.

The patents are bunk.

 

[Mendel]

Pais (at 1:30:40) , in cryptic mode on reasons for filing the patent:

"My biggest fear is that certain nefarious elements will pick up on this work and find validity"
"Thats why language was made specifically to deter any such nefarious elements from proceeding"


"Nefarious elements" could mean foreign adversaries but would "language" deter such elements from proceeding?
By language- I presume Pais means either disinformation or (more likely given cryptic context) - enough information to prevent nefarious types claiming they derived proprietary knowledge from materials found at NHI recovery sites.

If the latter is correct (to counter the ET stalking horse) - this at least provides a half rational motivation for Sheehy and Pais strange activities - they are simply undertaking their sworn duties.
(against all enemies, foreign and domestic isn't it?)

National secrets cannot be patented. If anything, this is a counter-intelligence operation, designed to confuse America's adversaries.

Or Pais found some military brass without access to reliable science advisors.

 

[John J.]

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

This uses an "inertial mass reduction device" for its core operation.
It was submitted right around the time TTSA were putting the team together

Thread about the patent here,
US Navy "UFO" patent by Salvatore Cezar Pais (also relevant post #41 by @FatPhil in the Meta Materials From UFOs thread).

In that thread, @flarkey linked to The War Zone article "The Navy Finally Speaks Up About Its Bizarre "UFO Patent" Experiments", which itself links to other TWZ reports on the saga. The TWZ writer is sceptical of the work covered by the patents.

The patent describes a craft using a microwave resonant chamber-type device, similar in concept to (as far as I can tell), and possibly inspired by, the EmDrive (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EmDrive), which almost certainly doesn't work.
Several groups/ agencies including NASA's Eagleworks and Boeing's Phantom Works have attempted to replicate claims for the EmDrive and other claimed resonant cavity reactionless drives; cut a long story short there were some apparently positive results in some trials but not in others. With more rigorous consideration of confounding variables, positive results dropped. Boeing stopped research. The NASA team, criticized for publishing results from low-power (in the physical and statistical sense) experiments using a questionable and not fully transparent methodology

...announced a plan to upgrade their equipment to higher power levels, and to use a test framework subject to independent verification and validation at one or more major research centers. This did not happen.

(Wikipedia as above).

As of now, it looks like Pais' patent has expired because no-one was prepared to stump up the fees to the patent office, which seems a bit careless if you've published the details of a revolutionary technology in the public realm;

Status
Expired - Fee Related

(Google patents website, US patent US10144532B2 "Craft using an inertial mass reduction device", Salvatore Cezar Pais, filed by US Navy May 2016 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en)

Resonant cavity thrusters are now broadly accepted as pseudoscience. They conflict with conservation of momentum.
With no scientifically plausible reason why they should work, and a lack of experimental replication of early claims by teams using more rigorous methodologies taking more confounding variables into account, serious interest has waned.
Fringe interest remains, just as it does for other mistaken claims (perpetual motion machines, cold fusion based on electrolysis, power acquired from the Casimir effect,, etc. etc.).

We are 25 years on from the EmDrive, 10 years after Salvatore Pais' patent. There are no indications of any practical development of these ideas.
In contrast: The first lab-based jet engines producing thrust were demonstrated in 1937. (Wikipedia, History of the jet engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_jet_engine). A jet aircraft flew 2 years later. 7 years from the lab tests they were in (highly visible) active military service. Within 10 years many nations had jet aircraft, it was clear jets would replace many military propellor aircraft and would be the future of commercial airline operations.
25 years from the first lab tests, scheduled transatlantic passenger jets had been flying for 4 years (since 1958) and several air forces had jets capable of Mach 2 flight in routine use.
I would argue that it is easier, and cheaper, to build (supposed) resonant cavity thrusters of the types represented by the EmDrive and Pais' patent than it is to build jet engines. But no-one is using them for any practical purpose; no-one has really demonstrated that they work.

Patents for technological applications in the US, UK and I'd guess in other nations should, in principle, only be granted for inventions that work, but there are well-known examples of this not being the case:

In 1980 a United States patent (US4215330A) was granted for a perpetual motion machine, described by inventor Emil T. Hartman as a "Permanent Magnetic Propulsion System", see Google Patents https://patents.google.com/patent/US4215330, patent viewable as PDF https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/cd/aa/49/3294ffac6e75ad/US4215330.pdf, Wikipedia article Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy

In 1973, British Rail, then the UK's nationalised railway (railroad) company, was granted a UK patent for a nuclear fusion-powered passenger-carrying flying saucer, description in post #11, "US Navy "UFO" patent by Salvatore Cezar Pais" thread.

Interestingly, like Pais' patent (if I've understood correctly) the patent lapsed due to unpaid renewal fees (Wikipedia, British Rail flying saucer, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_flying_saucer).

It is unlikely that British Rail were paving the way for disclosure of information about breakthrough technologies, or seeking to monetize hidden knowledge of metamaterials or revolutionary drive systems.

Patents (and other civil means of safeguarding intellectual property rights, e.g. trademarks, copyright) are not a good way to protect military secrets, though some developments from defense-related research have been patented (IIRC some of the ideas about aircraft geometries used to develop stealth aircraft were patented). China uses, and sells, clones of Humvee vehicles and some Western infantry weapons with no concerns about IPR. The USSR reverse-engineered Nene turbojets supplied by the UK as a gesture of friendship, on the (astonishingly naïve) condition they would not be used militarily. American (and British/ Commonwealth) pilots encountered MiG-15s over Korea, powered by Nene-derived engines. If claimed resonance cavity drives had practical applications, someone would probably be using them by now, regardless of patents.

It was submitted right around the time TTSA were putting the team together

The Pais patent was submitted in May 2016, TTSA was founded in 2017 (October?; Rolling Stone "Tom DeLonge Announces Stars Academy for 'Outer Edges of Science' Research", Althea Legaspi, 12 October 2017 https://www.rollingstone.com/music/...y-for-outer-edges-of-science-research-125580/).

Whenever TTSA had been founded, it's likely we could find some claim of breakthrough technologies, or some interesting scientific discovery, within a year or two of that date.
There is no evidence that TTSA ever did any useful practical or realistic theoretical work relating to novel materials, drives or anything else.
Not one product, not one peer-reviewed paper, not a single plausible research facility with relevant equipment.
Come to that, there's no evidence of any "mundane" contributions to science or engineering by TTSA; major research efforts often make many incidental findings that are written up and published.

The Salvatore Pais patent probably doesn't describe a useable technology. Ten years on "the Pais effect" has not been demonstrated.
Patents are sometimes granted for inventions that don't work.
If anyone at TTSA had any connection to Pais or the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, which I don't think has been shown, that wouldn't alter the fact that resonance cavity drives haven't been shown to work, and that there are very good reasons to believe they can't work.
If Tom DeLonge or TTSA/ To The Stars Inc. are interested in something, that is not an indication that they have conducted relevant research or know of secret relevant research.

 

[FatPhil]

Thank you.
There are massive red flags in that wikipedia article:

• He reported that he began in 2015 to publish his patents "after rejections from academic publishing"
• No working prototype of any of the patented inventions was ever developed.
• The patents have been met with widespread skepticism from the physics community.

The patents are bunk.

I'm sure you're right, but I'm pretty sure these guys are willing to at least pretend that you're wrong:

However, in these patent documents, the inventor Salvatore Pais, Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division's (NAWCAD) patent attorney Mark O. Glut, and the U.S. Naval Aviation Enterprise's Chief Technology Officer Dr. James Sheehy, all assert that these inventions are not only enabled, but operable. To help me understand what that term may mean in these contexts, I reached out to Peter Mlynek, a patent attorney.

Mlynek informed me that the terms "operable" or "operability" are not common in patent applications, but that there is little doubt that the use of the term is meant to assert to the USPTO that these inventions actually work:

"Generally, patent applications are rejected on the basis of enablement more frequently than for operability. The Patent Office rejects patent applications based on enablement because the patent attorney did not describe the invention fully, because either the patent attorney did a sloppy job, or the patent attorney caved to the client's pressure to disclose as little about the invention as possible.

"Operability/operative, on the other hand, means that the invention actually works. From what I've seen, operability rejection comes up in cases where the patent attorney does not really understand the science or technology behind the invention. In many cases, the rejection based on inoperability is a kind of way of telling the patent attorney that the attorney has no idea what he/she is talking about."

-- https://www.twz.com/29232/navys-advanced-aerospace-tech-boss-claims-key-ufo-patent-is-operable

 

[JMartJr]

There are massive red flags in that wikipedia article:

• He reported that he began in 2015 to publish his patents "after rejections from academic publishing"
• No working prototype of any of the patented inventions was ever developed.
• The patents have been met with widespread skepticism from the physics community.

The patents are bunk.

Plus it was allowed to expire. If it was patenting something that actually worked, it would be of extraordinary importance and value. But it was allowed to expire for non payment of maintenance fees?

 

[owntheissue]

Plus it was allowed to expire. If it was patenting something that actually worked, it would be of extraordinary importance and value. But it was allowed to expire for non payment of maintenance fees?

If the purpose of the Navy Patent was to lay prior claim to "inertial mass reduction" before TTSA could CRADA - failure of TTSA would be an expected outcome,

Leading on to your point:
The navy wouldn't need to maintain the patent as A: inertial mass reduction has no current general scientific acceptance and B: the patents were purely a sacrificial pawn played during a game of chess between 2 internal faction stakeholders.

Common sense dictates the patent contains no information of intelligence value to adversaries.
Furthermore - no one in this thread is a PhD solid state matter physicist and yet - not one buyer.

But still they publicised.

 

[John J.]

If the purpose of the Navy Patent was to lay prior claim to "inertial mass reduction" before TTSA could CRADA - failure of TTSA would be an expected outcome,

Leading on to your point:
The navy wouldn't need to maintain the patent as A: inertial mass reduction has no current general scientific acceptance and B: the patents were purely a sacrificial pawn played during a game of chess between 2 internal faction stakeholders.

The patent was submitted at least a year before DeLonge announced his plans for forming TTSA. I'd guess work on the patent went on for some time before the submission.
The patent could not have been a pre-emptive move to scupper TTSA.

Equally, though the Pais patent might be the sort of thing that might be of interest to DeLonge /others in TTSA, DeLonge (and of course Luis Elizondo) had an interest in UFOs, esoteric subjects and "fringe science" before the May 2016 patent.
The patent is not a required factor in the founding of TTSA. Is there any evidence at all that it played a role in DeLonge's launch of TTSA?

 

[NorCal Dave]

EDIT: Cross posted with @John J. above, not trying to gang up on the same quote.

If the purpose of the Navy Patent was to lay prior claim to "inertial mass reduction" before TTSA could CRADA - failure of TTSA would be an expected outcome,

Leading on to your point:
The navy wouldn't need to maintain the patent as A: inertial mass reduction has no current general scientific acceptance and B: the patents were purely a sacrificial pawn played during a game of chess between 2 internal faction stakeholders.

TTSA was never going to do anything with "internal mass reduction", they were just throwing the term around. DeLonge was making claims about hitting their sample with a THz to make it "float" on JRE, but it seems Elizondo, who was the prime investigator for TTSA and negotiated the CRADA might have been selling it to the army as an electro-magnetic wave guide of some sort. From the CRADA close out report:

The USG found that the physical and elemental properties of the A1 are incompatible in its current state to serve as an EM wave guide. While the samples possessed the constituent materials suitable for an EM waveguide, the present physical structure and elemental properties are incompatible to function as an EM waveguide. Considering all available evidence, the USG assessed that this specimen is likely a test object, a manufacturing product or byproduct, or a material component of aerospace performance studies to evaluate the properties of Mg alloys.

And from some boiler plate questions for similar reports:

2. Did you or the collaborator test and evaluate developing technology with intellectual property rights assigned?

The A1 sample was the intellectual property of TTS. A1 was determined to have no military or ground vehicle application as presented. No joint intellectual property was developed under the CRADA.

3. Did the research yield expected results?

The research did not yield a useable EM waveguide design that was anticipated upon entrance
of the collaboration.

8. Why or why not did the technology advance or not advance?

The technology artifact presented by TTS was not in pristine condition given its chain of custody and reported history. The technology artifact's physical/structural state and elemental properties are incompatible to function as an EM waveguide as originally described by TTS and
concluded by AARO.

CRADA Final Close-Out Report [4 Pages, 0.5MB]

TTSA only ever had 1 sample, A1, that was obviously one of Art's Parts. The EM waveguide stuff is from TTSA co-founder, Puthoff. A 2012 letter from Puthoff to Howe:

Puthoff knew the sample wasn't a lifting or propulsion device, or a "internal mass reduction" system, as he had tested it repeatedly. The EM waveguide thing was the last hope for something exotic from this piece of junk. Elizondo was selling the sample to the Army with various claims and DeLonge was hyping it up with various claims. I'd imagine "internal mass reduction" was just another buzz phrase they heard and used.

A 4D version of chess being played in public between different agencies about something that has never been demonstrated seems highly unlikely. If there were elements within the DoD that had working prototypes of some "mass reduction" system, it would ultimately be controlled by the DoD, not something only the Army or Navy exploited.

History says the most obvious suggestion for the questionable patent, may just be good old fear of missing out (FOMO). Recall that the various experiments that became Project Stargate had people like Puthoff and Targ and later Edwin C. May, selling Magic Beans to the Army and the CIA for nearly 20 years all because of FOMO. These guys, and others, spent years using government funds to research "remote viewing", "telekinesis", ESP, general Psy and advanced technologies like spoon bending by hustlers, primarily because some people in government were afraid the Soviets were doing it.

The right people had become convinced the Soviets were, either successfully employing Psy, or were about to and the US might fall behind. So, what became Project Stargate rolled along for almost 20 years, not because it ever produced anything useful, but because of FOMO. In more modern times, just replace the Soviet Union with China.

As noted above, the same FOMO argument was used to push the patent (bold by me):

The patent was initially rejected, but was granted after James Sheehy, the Naval Aviation Enterprise's chief technology officer, wrote to the United States Patent and Trademark Office asserting that the invention was operable and warning that the Chinese military were developing similar technology.[6]​[18]​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore-Pais

One could hope Sheehy and others at the NAE may have been playing games with the Chinese and attempting to send them running in circles trying to create a mass reduction technology because the US supposedly had one. They could have been trying to induce FOMO in China, but I doubt anything that complicated went on.

The book/movie The Men Who Stare At Goats is a fictionalized account of people like General Albert Stubblebine, who believing the stuff FOMO was creating at Project Stargate was legit, attempted to train himself, and his subordinates, to walk through walls and bend spoons with their minds:

A key sponsor of the Stargate Project (a remote viewing project) at Fort Meade, Maryland, Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his battalion commanders learn how to bend spoons in the manner of celebrity psychic Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, in addition to walking through walls, such as levitation and dispersing distant clouds with his mind.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine

The later seems more likely.

I don't see some super secret game of chess going on, rather some UFO believers, and some hustlers (sometimes one in the same) are trying to simultaneously out government secrets about UFOs while selling Magic Beans related to the supposed UFOs. Some of the same people have been doing the same thing for decades.