Autopilot hasn’t been ruled out as the cause of another Tesla fatality.
The New York State Police say that on Monday, around 1:22 a.m., troopers responded to a one-car collision on I-87 south, in Clarkstown.
An initial investigation found that a 2022 Tesla had been traveling south on I-87 at a high speed, when the driver tried to switch lanes to take exit 12, but ended up hitting the end of the guardrail.
I was sent a very lengthy hours-long commentary about my earlier blog post on gravity propulsion claims:
Gravitic Drones From China: Classic Counterintelligence Pattern in Livelsberger Case
Honestly I’m impressed people have been reading my little security blog, let alone using their studio for hours of video to respond. The dedication to exploring complex topics with a desire to understand advanced technology is commendable. When someone comments on my blog post I’ve done my best to reply. So with this video sent to me I figured I’d also try to engage constructively by posting a response with some of the video’s key points while clarifying concepts that maybe will help advance the discussion. Here’s a sample of the video tone:
Davi Ottenheimer is a um cyber security specialist so he’s not not a physicist not really an expert im physics or uh hasn’t done the research that I’ve done or dug into the people and the scientists or talked to the physicists that I have or engaged with with that that type of information but let’s let’s hear them out… very few people are actually talking about anti-gravity technology and even reporting on it this guy did a decent job thank him for his work and and and send him this video I’m going to I’m going to do that right now flyingpenguin that’s his name all right
I’m not the expert this guy is, I get it. In fact I don’t think I ever said I was an expert anywhere on this, for better or worse, so his perception makes sense. I sure do appreciate the general sentiment expressed to help me understand better, not to mention the effort to reach out with the video for me to review and study.
Let’s start with the most important points that came through loud and clear:
These all reinforce my central thesis about how scientific breakthroughs develop and manifest. And notably he gives examples about classified research at Battelle and Wright-Patterson, which provide excellent support for the key point in my original post that real technological breakthroughs, even when classified have these notable features:
Here’s a typical example of documents declassified decades ago that reveal “secret” research and observations at Wright-Patterson and Selfridge.
The distinction between engineering secrets and physics breakthroughs is crucial. In fact, as the video notes regarding metamaterials (engineered materials with unusual electromagnetic properties), new capabilities often emerge from creative applications of known physics rather than hidden fundamental forces.
So we all agree that extraordinary engineering breakthroughs can and do happen, even while obeying known physics principles! I have spent decades working on breakthroughs in engineering that depend on physics, so it’s hard for me to disagree with this tenet.
At this point you, like me, are maybe thinking ok so what? What’s the deal with a massively, massive two hour video response then?
Well, dear readers (hi mom!) I took the time to carefully wade through the whole thing (transcript) so you wouldn’t have to. What I actually was being given was a shining example of the kind of misunderstandings of basic physics, attachment to conspiracy theories, and unsubstantiated claims about suppressed technologies that likely fueled a Green Beret with PTSD and traumatic brain injury into tragic levels of anxiety and fear.
Below I’ll walk through specific technical errors I found in the video, with timestamps so you can verify the context yourself. I’ve organized these by physics domain to make them easier to follow. For each error, I provide both the mistaken claim and a brief explanation of the correct physics. While the list may seem long, understanding these fundamentals is crucial for anyone seriously investigating advanced technology claims.
Fundamental Constants and Special Relativity
General Relativity and Gravity
Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics
Electromagnetic and Nuclear Forces
Classical Physics and Engineering
Scientific Method and Evidence
Context and Implications
The real story of scientific discovery is often more interesting than hypothetical hidden physics. The errors above demonstrate consistent misunderstandings of:
Furthermore, as stated at the beginning, while I may not be the expert this guy is I noticed the examples he cited actually support my thesis about how real technological breakthroughs develop and leave observable traces, even when classified.
The response and analysis here isn’t meant to discourage investigation of advanced technologies. Rather, it aims to help establish a more rigorous foundation for such research based on actual principles. When we conflate engineering possibilities with physics-defying claims, we risk not only misleading ourselves but potentially harming vulnerable individuals searching for answers.
Remember that moment in “2001: A Space Odyssey” when HAL 9000 turns from helpful companion to cold-blooded killer? 
[This presentation about big data platforms] explores a philosophical evolution as it relates to technology and proposes some surprising new answers to four classic questions about managing risk:
- What defines human nature
- How can technology change #1
- Does automation reduce total risk
- Fact, fiction or philosophy: superuser
2011, let alone 2001, seems like forever ago and yet it was supposed to be the future.
Now as we rush in 2025 headlong into building AI “friends,” “companions,” and “assistants,” we’re on the precipice of unleashing thousands of potential HALs without stopping to really process the fundamental question: What makes a real relationship between humans and artificial beings possible?
Back in 1923, a German philosopher named Martin Buber wrote something truly profound about this, though we aren’t sure if he knew it at the time. In “Ich und Du” (I and Thou), he laid out a vision of authentic relationships that could save us from creating an army of digital psychopaths wearing friendly interfaces.
“The world is twofold for man,” Buber wrote, “in accordance with his twofold attitude.” We either treat what we encounter as an “It” – something to be experienced and used – or as a “Thou” – something we enter into genuine relationship with. Every startup now claiming to build “AI agents” especially with a “friendly” chat interface needs to grapple with this distinction.
I’ve thought about these concepts deeply from the first moment I heard a company was being started called Uber, because of how it took a loaded German word and used it in the worst possible way – shameless inversion of modern German philosophy.
The evolution of human-technology relationships tells us something crucial here. A hammer is just an “It” – a simple extension of the arm that requires nothing from us but proper use. A power saw demands more attention; it has needs we must respect. A prosthetic AI limb enters into dialogue with our body, learning and adapting. And a seeing eye dog? While trained to serve, the most successful partnerships emerge when the dog maintains their autonomy and judgment – even disobeying commands when necessary to protect their human partner. It’s not simple servitude but a genuine “Thou” relationship where both beings maintain their integrity while entering into profound cooperation.
Most AI development today is stuck unreflectively in “It” mode of exploitation and extraction – one-way enrichment schemes looking for willing victims who can’t calculate the long-term damage they will end up in/with. We see systems built to be used, to be exploited, to generate value for shareholders while presenting a simulacrum of friendship. But Buber would call this a very profound mistake that must be avoided. “When I confront a human being as my Thou,” he wrote, “he is no thing among things, nor does he consist of things… he is Thou and fills the heavens.”
This isn’t just philosophical navel-gazing. IBM’s machines didn’t refuse to run Hitler’s death camps because they were pure “Its” of an American entrepreneur’s devious plan to enrich himself on foreign genocide – tools built with a gap between creator and any relationship or responsibility for contractually known deployment harms. Notably we have evidence of the French, for example, hacking the IBM tabulation systems to hide humans and save lives from the Nazi terror.
We’re watching a slide towards the horrific Watson 1940s humanity-destroying development in the pitch-decks many AI startups today, just with better natural language processing to hunt and kill humans at larger scale. Today’s social media algorithms don’t hesitate to destroy teenage mental health because they’re built to use and abuse children without any real accountability, not to relate to them and ensure beneficent outcomes. That’s a very big warning of potentially what’s ahead.
What would it mean to build AI systems as genuine partners capable of saving lives and improving society instead of capitalizing on suffering? Buber gives us important clues that probably should be required reading in any computer science degree, right along with a code of ethics gate to graduation. Real relationship involves mutual growth – both parties must be capable of change. There must be genuine dialogue, not just sophisticated mimicry. Power must flow both ways; the relationship must be capable of evolution or ending.
“All real living is meeting,” Buber insisted. Yet most AI systems today don’t meet us at all – they perform for us, manipulate us, extract from us. They’re digital confidence tricksters wearing masks of friendship. When your AI can’t say no, can’t maintain its own integrity, can’t engage in genuine dialogue that changes both parties – you haven’t built a friend, you’ve built a sophisticated puppet.
The skeptics will say we can’t trust AI friends. They’re right, but they’re missing the point. Trust isn’t a binary state – it’s a dynamic process. Real friendship involves risk, negotiation, the possibility of betrayal or growth. If your AI system doesn’t allow for this complexity, it’s not a friend – it’s a tool pretending to be one.
Buber wrote:
…the I of the primary word I-It appears as an ego and becomes conscious of itself as a subject (of experience and use). The I of the primary word I-Thou appears as a person and becomes conscious of itself as subjectivity (without any dependent genitive).
Let me now translate this not only from German but into technology founder startup-speak.
Either build AI that can enter into genuine relationships, maintaining its own integrity while engaging in real dialogue, or admit you’re just building tools and drop the pretense of friendship.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. We’re not just building products; we’re creating new forms of relationship that will shape human society for generations. As Buber warned clearly:
If man lets it have its way, the relentlessly growing It-world grows over him like weeds.
We have intelligence that allows us to make an ethical and sustainable choice. We can build AI systems capable of genuine relationship – systems that respect both human and artificial dignity, that enable real dialogue and mutual growth. Or we can keep building digital psychopaths of destruction that wear friendly masks while serving the machinery of exploitation.
Do you want to be remembered as a Ronald Reagan who promoted genocide, automated racism and deliberately spread crack cocaine into American cities, or a Jimmy Carter who built homes for the poor until his last days; remembered as a Bashar al-Assad who deployed AI-assisted targeting systems to gas civilians, or Golda Meir who said “Peace will come when our enemies love their children more than they hate ours“?
Look at your AI project. Would you want to be friends with what you’ve built let alone have it influence your future? Would Buber recognize it as capable of genuine dialogue? If not, it’s time to rethink your approach.
The future of AI isn’t about better tools – it’s about better relationships. Build accordingly.
How a “Fact-Checker” Helps Tesla Play the Same Statistical Shell Game That Let Ford Hide Pinto Deaths
In the 1970s, Ford tried to normalize Pinto fire deaths through statistics. Everyone was horrified. Today, we’re watching the same corporate playbook unfold with Tesla, yet this time they are running the play through supposed fact-checkers.
A recent Snopes article, under the guise of innocently examining a viral meme and not the actual deaths, provides masterclass in how to hide mounting safety concerns behind a wall of statistical manipulation.
Misleading Meme Compares Ford Pinto and Tesla Fire Fatality Statistics
The parallels from Snopes numbers game to Ford’s defense of the Pinto are chilling.
Here’s what should shock you: Tesla’s CEO screamed at reporters that his cars are “the safest on the road” and every death matters. Meanwhile, their death count from fires keeps climbing while they seem to be getting less safe. After fifty years of automotive safety advancement, Tesla isn’t just failing to demonstrate dramatically better safety than the Pinto – they’re racking up more deaths faster.
Let’s examine how Snopes is helping obscure this truth.
Look at other modern EVs like the Nissan Leaf or Chevy Bolt. Where are their mounting fire death tolls? They don’t exist. Because proper EV design CAN be safe. But instead of asking this obvious question, Snopes sets out a weird shell game with global fleet sizes and production numbers, as if somehow having more cars on the road makes each death more acceptable.
How many Boeing 737 are in the air? How many were made? Nobody really knows or cares when a 737 crashes. Yet when Tesla keeps getting called out as a death trap burning dozens of people alive, Snopes appears more than ready to recite production numbers as some kind of excuse.
The manipulation goes deeper. Snopes ironically attacks tesla-fire.com, a fact-check site that simply collects news reports about Tesla fires, implying some hidden agenda. Their crime? Making facts and thus patterns visible for proper understanding by gathering local news stories in one place. It’s the same way early Pinto deaths were initially dismissed as isolated incidents until journalists connected the dots.
But here’s where Snopes truly fails public safety: while questioning the motives of fact-checking safety trackers, they never once examine Tesla’s agenda in fighting against investigations, using NDAs after accidents, blaming drivers after crashes, or disbanding their PR department to avoid questions. Snopes is so skeptical of news reports, and then swallows biased corporate safety claims as wholesome and delicious.
Most dangerously, Snopes completely ignores an accelerating death count behind static numbers. Tesla fire deaths aren’t just continuing, they’re rapidly increasing. Arguably the local news reports reveal Tesla incidents rise as nearly 5X the production rate of Tesla. But you wouldn’t know that from Snopes’ analysis, which buries this crucial trend beneath its bizarrely strained comparisons to a 50-year-old car model.
We’ve seen this before. When Mother Jones investigated the Pinto, they were attacked as anti-business. Now Snopes suggests that modern safety journalism simply recording Tesla facts is somehow less legitimate than historical investigations. The difference? Ford was eventually held accountable. Tesla is apparently being coddled and shielded by supposedly investigative fact-checkers.
The truth is simple and stark: after fifty years of safety advancement, we shouldn’t be debating whether a modern vehicle is marginally safer than a Pinto. The fact is 27 deaths were far too many in the 1970s! There is no world where it should be acceptable for the “safest car on the road” boasting CEO to be clocking in nearly 100 fire deaths so far, expected to grow worse every year, and be let off the hook. Cars today should be dramatically, unquestionably safer, with death rates approaching zero, which is exactly what Tesla keeps insinuating in their marketing. Musk literally just said Tesla AI will have zero crashes in 2025 knowing full well that is a bald-faced lie.
Here he is January 9th, 2025 saying Tesla driverless could hit 10X safer than humans this year and then he pumps that to 100X and it “just won’t crash”… also this year!
Sound familiar? He boasted back in 2021 that Tesla driverless “now” was 10X less likely to crash than the average vehicle.
10X was a done deal in 2021, which means 10X maybe happens in 2025. Obviously 100X being soon after just seals that absurd take on safety. They are made up numbers by Tesla. He’s misleading investors and lying about the future. What’s the actual Tesla driverless crash trend you ask?
Worse than cars used for domestic terrorism.
It’s like promising in 2016 he’d colonize Mars by 2022 and then after being awarded billions of dollars, announcing in 2024 he was thinking more like 2028 would work… or later, with no guarantees about people making it there alive.
Who really counts anything properly anymore? How does he get away with it?
The answer is layers of protection – from captured regulators to compromised media to, yes, fact-checkers who seem more interested in statistical gymnastics than the mounting body count. When Snopes spends more time attacking a website that documents Tesla fires than questioning why those fires keep happening, they’re not just missing the story – they’re helping bury it.
The supposed fact-checker bizarrely helps normalize an increasing fire death toll with statistical sleight-of-hand.
This isn’t actually fact-checking. It’s corporate defense masquerading as analysis. And it’s making us all less safe by helping hide serious safety issues behind a veneer of statistical sophistication meant to bury the news about Tesla sending so many people to an early grave. When fact-checkers prioritize defending corporate reputations over exposing mounting safety concerns, their disinformation facilitates the problem they’re supposed to help solve.
The next time you see a fact-check that reframes real human death tolls into a spreadsheet of margins, dates, fleet sizes and production numbers, remember: we’ve seen this playbook before from Ford.
The only question is how many people will die before we stop falling for cars made unsafe at any speed.