Tic Tac Tech: Why Some Drone Paths Are More Likely Than Gravitic Propulsion

There seems to be endless debate about exotic propulsion in the Livelsberger case, but let’s not lose focus on what’s most probable: the 2004 Tic Tac incidents exposed advanced electromagnetic and plasma technology rather than gravity manipulation.

Consider that Orde Wingate didn’t break the laws of warfare when his men mysteriously appeared suddenly deep in enemy territory, but he certainly leveraged disinformation and propaganda to throw off observers. He was always challenging what was actually possible, as well as what people perceived.

Wingate’s fleet of Waco “Hadrian” Gliders in 1944 were deployed to do the “impossible” in Operation Thursday.

We’re now talking modern astrophysics here instead of early “long lines” flight tech of WWII, but operators always look at technology the same – an interesting puzzle that can be solved in novel ways.

To start, timing can be a telling thread to pull. The 2004 observations of unidentified flying craft were quickly followed by Fontana’s 2005 paper discussing both gravitational and electromagnetic approaches. That seems notable, yet rarely noted. In fact, electromagnetic technology showed consistent progression in the decades since, while gravitic proposalsn remained purely theoretical. Then came clear advancement in plasma physics, electromagnetic field generation, and materials science, while again gravitational manipulation showed no similar development chain.

Following that thread there were three capabilities in reports that stood out as possible breakthroughs: instant acceleration, silent supersonic travel, and seamless air-to-water transition. The crucial question now should be which technical approaches require the least impossible leap from existing engineering. Not theoretical; actual engineering.

Let’s look at instant acceleration without visible exhaust, not unlike the noise from Tesla about a car that would go 0-60 in one second. A gravitic drive would require energy densities comparable to astronomical objects, without incremental steps or partial success possible. Plasma field technology however offers a visible development path: from basic electromagnetic experiments to increasingly sophisticated field manipulation. Anyone who’s done smooth and fast night maritime operations knows how energy moves through water. The plasma field manipulation follows similar principles of working with the medium, not trying to defy it.

Even more clear in this direction is an absence of sonic booms. Gravitational manipulation would require warping space-time itself, as an all-or-nothing proposition requiring physics we have no known skill with. Electromagnetic shockwave control, however? We trace the rising development from theoretical papers through wind tunnel tests to programs like the very real X-59. Each step clearly built on proven technology, like how SDV operations evolved from basic underwater movements to sophisticated multi-domain capability.

The air-to-water transition might be the most revealing of all, which I have to say as “flyingpenguin”. A gravitic drive would need to manipulate fundamental forces. The required energy and infrastructure would be impossible to hide. But advanced materials and electromagnetic field manipulation? That’s like the difference between trying to eliminate waterline to minimize friction versus learning to work with it the way special operations have refined sea-land-air insertion techniques over decades.

The real distinction thus isn’t found yet in any single surprise technology breaking out. Rather we have a wide range of observable complementary engineering and development paths:

  • Incremental advances in plasma physics
  • Growing electromagnetic field control capabilities
  • Progressive materials science breakthroughs
  • Evolving power storage and management systems
  • Step-by-step sensor and control improvements

This list of improbable gains by 2004 had established clear development trajectories. Each advance built on previous work, used existing infrastructure, and required expertise we could actually develop. Like going back to Wingate’s brilliant innovations, they pushed the boundaries of what was possible without requiring impossible leaps.

The infrastructure needed for electromagnetic/plasma technology already exists and has been expanding with known specialized manufacturing, high-energy physics labs, and materials science facilities. We can trace the growth through public research, corporate investment, and observable testing programs.

In contrast, there are no meaningful gravity manipulation facilities, even though we expect them to be impossible to hide because of energy concentrations visible from space. Electromagnetic field manipulation works at scales we can actually achieve. Current research pushes these boundaries incrementally, like how modern maritime operations are developing sophisticated trans-medium capabilities. But gravity manipulation? The energy required literally would be astronomical.

This is why focusing on electromagnetic and plasma technology is plausible versus gravitational speculation. Not because of being impressive, given controlling gravity would certainly be revolutionary. But because we trace evolution and incremental skill mastery as reliable rather than expect operators to make revolutionary leaps only to witness disaster.

Everyone “knew” you couldn’t sustain operations deep behind enemy lines in impenetrable jungle. The physics of supply chains, the mechanics of force projection, the realities of hostile terrain all made it “impossible.” And Wingate didn’t break these rules to succeed. He mastered knowledge of them so completely he turned the Japanese own supply infrastructure into his support network, operating where they thought no force could survive.

The same principle applies for investigators of unbelievable craft. The path forward doesn’t have evidence of some gravitic shortcut around physics, some unlocked open backdoor to rescue the hostages we can credit to alien help. It’s in the routines that develop deep mastery of electromagnetic and plasma dynamics that we can turn fundamental forces to our advantage in ways others (who debate when a goose will lay the golden egg) consider impossible. The developmental path is not just more likely; it’s more interesting, because it shows us what’s really possible when we stop looking for silver bullet magic and keep pushing the boundaries of what we actually understand.

3 thoughts on “Tic Tac Tech: Why Some Drone Paths Are More Likely Than Gravitic Propulsion”

  1. This was super interesting and very well written. Thank you. With all this news of UFO / UAP stuff (whatever it is now) lately, I never considered that this type of propulsion may be behind it. In your other post about the “gravitic drones” Livelsberger spoke of in his email, you focused on how this information was likely a leak identifier as well as a red herring of sorts to distract from very real and verifiable war crimes. Which makes loads of sense unfortunately.

    However, I wonder if there is any truth to the idea he spoke of that China also has advanced propulsion technology (like the electromagnetic plasma variety) utilized in drones launched from submarines. Maybe that could be true, but just the “gravitic” part was a farce? Which would still have pretty frightening implications, even if they’re not “gravity powered”. Just curious what you think.

    I’m also curious what your best theory is on UFO sightings and events that took place long before 2004, like the mysterious flying objects over DC in 1952. Or even the Phoenix lights in 1997.

    At any rate, I sure do enjoy thinking about these things, they are entirely curious. It’s all too easy to let speculation and uncritical thinking take me down rabbit holes to unrealistic conclusions though. Thanks for reminding me to think critically and with good scrutiny.

    I hope this finds you well,
    Andrew

  2. @Andrew

    Thanks! Glad you found the piece thought-provoking. You raise an interesting point about foreign submarine-launched drones. While I aim to avoid speculation on specific capabilities, you’re right that electromagnetic/plasma propulsion development wouldn’t be limited to any one nation. The technology builds on decades of public research that many countries have contributed to.

    Regarding historical sightings: The key is looking at established engineering paths rather than extraordinary claims (e.g. SpaceX snake-oil dripping from X), because real breakthroughs tend to show a clear development trajectory. Many cases from the 1950s were actually well-documented after declassification, involving specific aircraft programs and test flights.

    Keep that critical thinking mindset! It’s the best tool we have for separating technological reality from technological eXcrement.

  3. Kids coming out of high school should understand plasma’s ubiquity and that we’ve been working with it for over a century. Then these observed phenomena wouldn’t be so exotic and fit within basic education.

    To recap for those poor souls who grew up in states like Texas or Florida where intelligence is criminalized, matter exists in very familiar states (solid, liquid, gas). Heat gas enough and electrons are stripped off atoms, leaving charged particles called plasma.

    The stuff is all around us as ionized gas in fluorescent lights, in lightning, or even aurora borealis everyone has been talking about lately.

    When 99.9% of visible matter in the universe is plasma, yet Americans say they don’t remember learning about it… we have a problem Houston!

    Aliens, shmaliens. Electromagnetic plasma propulsion is manipulation of an extremely common state of matter that should be kids play, not inventing new physics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.