
Navy Got 'UFO' Patent Granted by Warning of Similar Chinese Tech Advances - svd4anything
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-got-ufo-patent-granted-by-warning-of-similar-chinese-tech-advances
======
Abishek_Muthian
>(HAUC), which can function as a submersible craft capable of extreme
underwater speeds (lack of water-skin friction)

Chinese advancement in frictionless supercavitating submarines are already
well known[1]. But claiming that they have the capability to do so with EM
propulsion is something new.

What's more bewildering to me is that the patent fiasco surround this. AFAIK
state of the art defence tech rarely gets through patent system for obvious
reasons, TIL that U.S. Patent system has a way to file secret patents and even
that wasn't used in this case.

Not sure whether they filed this patent with PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty),
then they would be eligible to submit this patent application for review in
other countries as well.

[1]: [https://www.popsci.com/article/technology/chinas-future-
subm...](https://www.popsci.com/article/technology/chinas-future-submarine-
could-go-speed-sound/)

~~~
samstave
What are the speeds at which a super cavitating submarine must be at to
optimally function?

------
georgeburdell
> The concept is fairly simple, although the engineering required to make it a
> reality is anything but. All matter contains energy on the quantum level. By
> theoretically creating its own incredibly dense and polarized energy field,
> the hybrid craft is claimed to be able to create a quantum 'vacuum' around
> itself which allows it to repel any air or water molecules with which it
> interacts.

As a PhD in physics, this just sounds like nonsense to me. Energy isn't a
field and to polarize it doesn't mean anything.

> Little information can be found about Salvatore Cezar Pais; he has virtually
> no web presence. What is known is that he received a PhD in Mechanical and
> Aerospace Engineering from Case Western Reserve University in 1999 and that
> he currently works as an aerospace engineer for NAWCAD at Naval Air Station
> Patuxent River in Maryland – the Navy’s top aircraft test base. Pais has
> published several articles and presented papers at American Institute of
> Aeronautics and Astronautics conferences over the years describing his work
> in electromagnetic propulsion, revolutionary room temperature
> superconductors, and topics like his PhD dissertation: "Bubble generation
> under reduced gravity conditions for both co-flow and cross-flow
> configurations."

My sample size is small at ~5, but former classmates who joined the military
research labs were not the brightest bunch. Of my overall cohort, the smartest
ones went into industry, sometimes a different industry than their field of
study. The smart but idealistic ones went into academia. And then the ones
that truly never shed their sophomoric arrogance, acquired in their formative
years and that should have been beaten out of them by the doctoral process,
went to the military labs to work on secret stuff.

It may have been true in the past, but military labs don't have the cachet to
attract top talent.

With that being said, the most likely reason for this patent filing, as others
have noted, is misdirection.

~~~
keldaris
> As a PhD in physics, this just sounds like nonsense to me. Energy isn't a
> field and to polarize it doesn't mean anything.

That part is just a terrible attempt by the journalist to summarize the
theoretical background of the patent's (rather ludicrous) claims in a popular
form. The polarization they're talking about is just the vacuum polarization
in the standard QED sense. The funny stuff starts when the patent assumes that
you can automagically generate fields close to or over the Schwinger limit.

As a fellow physics PhD, I recommend reading the actual patent for comic
relief [1]. It has no other use as far as I can tell.

[1]
[https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/4c/43/62c585c...](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/4c/43/62c585ccc936cc/US10144532.pdf)

~~~
jrs235
This whole story is complete nonsense. First off, if the US military was in
possession of such technology they would NEVER submit a patent for it. Why
would they publish the technology to enable others (foreign governments and
entities) to easily copy it? The US Government doesn't need to protect
themselves from not being able to use the technology if it was real anyways.
The federal government of the United States has the "right to use patented
inventions without permission"[1].

So yeah, perhaps someone working for the Navy wants to try to patent it so
they can make some money from the technology. Well, it is very likely such
technology would be top secret classified and any individuals working on it
would find themselves in deep trouble for publishing anything, including
patents, related to their work.

If this story is true, at least the part about some patent trying to explain
the UFO's that have been in the news more of late then it is likely a psyops
piece/work and/or is a means to try to quell concerns that there are in fact
extraterrestrials visiting earth or things the U.S. government (and others)
can't explain.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_(United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_patent_use_\(United_States\))

------
woodruffn
I've seen two variants of this fly over my house in Colorado a few years ago.
Giant triangular craft moving silently at insane speed - clearing the entire
night sky in 7 seconds, appeared to be the size of an aircraft carrier. They
have 5 very dim white points of light underneath that outline their triangle
shape. I wouldn't even believe my own eyes except that my wife shared the
experience with me.

~~~
samstave
In approx 1989 or so, i was doing marching exercises at the truckee california
airport for my civil air patrol group...

My command leader was a former SR-71 flight mechanic...

We were marching about, and it was just after dusk, but a full moon.

At the horizon, we saw a craft come up over the mountains at incredible speed
- and we watched it as it was flying at a vertical as opposed to an arc which
a winged aircraft woulld require...

Within seconds the thing was hovering about 100 feet above us. Silently. A
huge triangle with the white lights on corners and one in the middle.

Our commander yelled and said “everyone inside now!” And hustled us back into
our hangar office...

—-

About three weeks ago, in santa rosa ca, i saw a sphere glowing in the sky and
moving at a rate which was impossible for conventional craft..

And as i watched it, it literally just disappeared.

I fully believe bob lazar.

~~~
su30mki117
Why would anyone controlling such an aircraft deliberately take it to a
hovering position above 100 feet of people who have never seen it before?
Aren't these flight tests supposed to happen away from public's view? It looks
as if on one hand, the government wants to keep a tight lid on these things,
on the other hand, they want to give it all away so easily (based on stories
such as yours), which makes no sense. I will be a skeptic until the day I can
get to lick the surface of such a craft.

~~~
electrograv
It seems like tech so incredible as this would make eyewitness testimony quite
literally “unbelievable” and “incredible”. If you had tech like that, you
could pretty much show yourself to any group of people less than the
population of an entire city, and nobody would believe them.

~~~
su30mki117
But what is the motivation? What do they get by showing it a small group,
other than to just make the group question their sanity?

~~~
electrograv
It doesn’t necessarily need to be intentional. Perhaps they had some other
business to fly to that airport, and simply don’t care if there are people
there or not due to the “unbelievability effect” which they’d be well aware
of.

(Obviously I’m just speculating, and I’m not assigning belief either way to
any of this; I just enjoy thinking about the possibilities here.)

------
georgewsinger
“High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generator"? Isn't this the technology
reported to be seen by the infamous Bob Lazar in the late 80s?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar)

~~~
bayareanative
Tinfoil attention seeker or big claims/flimsy evidence pleader. There's also a
lot of lonely, sad people who say the FBI's watching them and have a file on
them... delusions of grandeur.

~~~
kekebo
I used to have a similar stance, especially given the outlandish nature of his
claims, but a lot of things he said that were initially used against him after
the Knapp interview turned out to be accurate over time. His supposed
prediction of the discovery of Moscovium ("Element 115") still puzzles me.

Not that that's proving anything but it gives me a harder time to entirely
dismiss it.

The Joe Rogan interview linked in sibling comment is an interesting follow up
to the initial interviews with George Knapp from the late 80s.

~~~
libertine
Well one could say that it would be a matter of time before someone discovered
the Element 115 - what's curious is that he seems pretty confident when he
says that, when we will have a stable version of the element (if ever), it
will have the same properties he claims it has.

------
plutonorm
I find this scary. Because: Say this technology isn't that hard, say that we
are actually technologically capable of making this a reality? Of making a
craft that can basically separate itself off from the rest of the universe and
flit off to wherever it wants with impunity? That means that there are very
likely many many other alien species out there who have similar capability.
And those species don't actually have to be that smart or advanced, they could
be just as violent and messed up as we are. And they could be zipping in and
out of our atmosphere all the time.

I guess this is the first time I've considered that this whole UFO/alien thing
might be real.

God, this might be why they all look the same - the underlying technology
requires the same basic external shape... but the craft could be from
different civilisations.

------
wbhart
They seem to be confusing friction due to interaction with air and water with
inertial mass. This is crackpottery at the highest level. It's a bunch of
technobabble.

How does writing a patent for a device that obviously can't work as described
achieve anything. They can't come along years later and say, oh we invented
that, if something similar emerges, as it will be abundantly clear from the
nonsense description that they did not invent it.

~~~
empath75
There seem to be two plausible reasons for getting such a patent — the navy
genuinely thinks this is just around the corner and doesn’t want to pay
extortionate license fees to an American company to use it or they want China
to think we are pursuing such a technology and want them to waste resources
pursuing it themselves.

~~~
wbhart
The first doesn't seem plausible for the reason I gave. The second occurred to
me. But how stupid do they think the Chinese are? If the top Chinese military
researchers really have such a poor grasp of physics, then their research
efforts present no difficulties for the security of the US.

The only serious explanation I can come up with is that buried in this
application is some element of the design which is feasible and which they do
want to protect. But even that seems unlikely, given that they could have just
made it secret.

Another less likely explanation is that someone in the navy is playing a prank
on the public and the patent office. If the person who submitted the
application doesn't actually exist, the navy might have trouble tracking down
the perpetrator of the hoax.

One final possibility is that it is a recruiting tool. Perhaps by making this
public they get a bunch of correspondence from talented individuals who
capably point out that is nonsense, or that are capable of doing experiments
that demonstrate parts of the patent to be nonfeasible.

~~~
samstave
Does anyone recall the missing hard drives from LLL or los alamos, which were
grabbed by the chinese spy?

Or the theft of an AWAX by the chinese?

They are not stupid.

When i was at lockheed the chinese were phishing lockheed staff who had
attended defense conferences. They managed to get a worm in lockheed that
trickle fed them stolen data.

When it was discovered they opened the flood gates and tried to dump mass data
out of the lockheed network - which, at the time, only had three egress points
to the internet such that lockheed had to shit them down.

Then, lockheed tried to keep an air-gap between vendors they were using... but
the chinese hacked the vendors such that they coulld compromise the usb drives
being used as the sneakerbet between lockheed and the vendors....

The chinese are not stupid.

~~~
empath75
Stupidity is not always evenly distributed. Both the Russians and Americans
threw away money on paranormal research, for example, largely because they
thought the other side was doing it.

------
andrewflnr
If these are all public patents, why haven't a couple dozen university labs
taken a stab at building them or at least verifying the principles? This is
something where I would expect even negative results to be newsworthy.

Anyway, it seems to me that the options have narrowed to human tech or psyops.
Invoking aliens just doesn't help with any of the observations.

~~~
IshKebab
Because they're obvious nonsense. It would be a complete waste of time. Also
pretty embarrassing if anyone found out you were trying to replicate this
crack pottery.

~~~
krapp
Don't you mean it's... _patent nonsense?_

I'll get my coat.

------
nprateem
Well since foo fighters [1] were spotted during the Second World War and I
doubt the US patented designs for the F117 stealth bomber several decades
before it was revealed, I'd put this in the class of psyops. If they don't
know what's flying those things or what they are, better to blame the Chinese
instead of little green/grey men and get people all concerned.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter)

~~~
bhaak
I'm having a hard time parsing the last sentence.

Is it "blame Chinese and (not aliens) and get people concerned (to be aware/do
something" or "blame Chinese and (not alien and not get people concerned)"?

~~~
nprateem
The latter.

I mean just make everyone think it's the Chinese so they won't worry about it.
"Oh it's just the Chinese and we're developing our own version" is much less
scary than "It's something that acts with total impunity in our airspace and
we haven't got a clue what it is, how it works or where it's from".

It must have been pretty obvious to the Navy this story would have been picked
up by the media and widely circulated.

------
nickpsecurity
All this stuff was on those alternative science and energy sites (below) I
looked at ages ago. The ones with lifters, ZPE, gravitational wave weapons,
and so on. One I thought was interesting was Townsend Brown with the claim he
and others did antigravity research with practical applications. The B2 was
most likely source of funding at one point given (a) it was enormously
expensive and (b) some of its traits matched the ones in Brown's antigravity
designs.

Most of the stuff on those sites looked like BS, though. I don't know about
Brown and this recent guy, though. This could also be disinformation to get
Chinese to waste time on it. It has plus side that they can patent sue them if
they do find anything.

EDIT: This was one of the sites. Just came back to me.

[https://www.americanantigravity.com/tim-ventura-on-
antigravi...](https://www.americanantigravity.com/tim-ventura-on-antigravity)

------
svd4anything
Related discussion previously on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19760727](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19760727)

------
partiallypro
My question is, why would the US patent a secret technology? I don't think we
patent the materials used on the F-35, etc... Those are top secret.

~~~
electrograv
TLDR: The claims and descriptions in these Navy patents _exactly match_ the
“leaked technical descriptions” from many conspiracy theories over the past
30-40 years claiming that the US government has secret craft capable of
defying the current known limits of aerodynamics and propulsion.

Antigravity conspiracy theories has been a favorite source of
fascination/amusement for me for a long time (see my username), and I cannot
describe how eerie and weird it feels to read official Navy patents and claims
by ex-head of Lockheed Martin skunkworks literally corroborating some of
conspiracy theories I’ve heard going around for decades. (Yet the skeptic in
my brain still won’t allow me to fully believe it until I see a working
prototype.)

The whole story here is just so utterly bizarre; the deeper you dig, the
weirder it gets. These TheDrive articles seem to do a great job of
investigating and reporting on the facts without too much speculation, and I
highly recommend diving down the rabbit hole of linked articles (especially on
this connected “To The Stars Academy” organization making similar claims of
incredible technology by a panel of founders with astoundingly impressive and
official credentials).

To add to the strangeness of the Navy patents: the actual patent contents
reads almost like gibberish, or the kind of pseudoscientific technobabble
you’d write to add scientific explanations of space ships to a sci-fi novel.
If the technical descriptions and phenomena are real, then these patents
really are describing or hinting at new physics, but in a way that misuses
existing terms and reexplains obvious basics of physics with what seems like
amateurish imprecision (like referring to cross products as “multiplication”)
— which just doesn’t make sense at all given the credentials of those vouching
for the patents.

Yet, the descriptions match almost _exactly_ the rumors and conspiracy
theories of how electrogravitic propulsion systems of secret military craft
worked. And, they describe something that should be testable even without a
room temperature superconductor (one could take a charged super capacitor and
spin it and/or vibrate it at extreme frequencies and see if this has any
measurable effect on its inertial or gravitational mass), which intrigues me.

Look into the “TR-3B” or “Aurora project” conspiracy theory and you’ll find
tales and descriptions of the crafts antigravity drive that is absolutely
identical to what is described in these patents: a superconducting medium
carrying an extremely high charge density, that is rotated and vibrated are
incredibly high frequencies — and this is claimed to somehow reduce the
inertial mass of the surrounding area.

This TR-3B conspiracy theory is decades old, at least, and it matches these
official government patents exactly.

It’s almost as if someone took some of the most intriguing rumors or
conspiracy theories of secret government craft from decades ago, and started
filing patents from extremely official government sources on exactly the kind
of tech that was rumored to exist; yet in a way that sounds much like
pseudoscience to anyone educated in modern physics.

This is the kind of thing which, based on the content itself, you’d
immediately dismiss as a crackpot conspiracy theory technobabble. But the
highly official credentials of the source of these patents, and of the people
claiming or hinting that the tech is real (the ex-head of Lockheed Martin
skunkworks — it doesn’t get much more credible than that) makes it impossible
to ignore in that way.

So I honestly don’t know what to make of any of this. It would be interesting
to try experimenting with some of the testable claims that these patents
describe.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
This has also been a hobby of mine. Regardless of anything about aliens or
technology, this area says something very interesting about the way our
society processes information, about how scientists and organizations deal
with non-reproducible information, for example.

From watching social media over the past few years, especially the various
foreign authoritarian governments, we can see an easy pattern: some bit of
truth comes out, then the organization trying to suppress conversation floods
the conversation with tons of half-truths, lies, conspiracy theories, and so
forth. In the firehose of bullshit, the only thing the average observer can do
is throw up their hands and give up.

Based on this general pattern of information and disinformation, I'm quite
confident that the western mostly-free (?) countries are trying to have an
honest conversation with themselves. About what, I have no idea. What I find
particularly interesting are the professional, multi-sourced observations of
various things happening that seem to just get eaten up by the system itself.
Whether incompetence, secrecy, crackpots, or whatnot, it says something really
fascinating about how groups of people deal with things they don't want to
deal with.

Yes, there are crackpots and liars in the world. Yes, there are people who are
honestly mistaken. There are also people who avoid controversy and just throw
out the "crackpot" label instead of thinking through things. These are all
easy responses. Even putting all the options together, something very
interesting is going on that we're not dealing with so well.

~~~
electrograv
I think the need for most people to assign the label “crackpot” vs “credible”
almost immediately to any claim (especially to the more far-out claims) is an
aspect of human nature: a desire to break down and simplify our view of the
world into discrete categories as early as possible.

I think we do this not because this is the most accurate way to think, but
because our minds are finite, and we need some simplifying approximation (e.g.
quantization of a continuum into categories, or binary decisions) in order to
make thinking about the immensely complicated world even possible.

For example, we tend to seek conclusions like “we have decided that A is good,
B is bad, C is bunk, and D is science — case closed!” When in reality, our
understanding of truth is far more a continuous and constantly evolving thing,
as new information and ideas flow through.

Put simply, I think most people are just uncomfortable answering important
questions with “I don’t know”, and avoid that answer at all costs, even when
it is the correct answer.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
A long, long time ago, some generation looked up into the sky and saw a
somewhat nearby supernova. Visible during the day! Incredible spectacle!

Within a short amount of time of those folks dying off, however, it all became
BS. It was the sky god. It was an optical illusion. It was a bunch of liars.
It was stupid people. It was people making stuff up.

These knee-jerk, easy answers come because in most cases they're true. But
even more true is the fact that there are a ton of people _who just have to
know_. Whether it's aliens or swamp gas, they have to know one way or the
other. Just looking up in the sky and saying "Did you see that? Beats me what
it is" isn't good enough.

Non-reproducible phenomenon is still phenomenon. The point the former
Assistant SecDef was making in his recent opinion piece is extremely valid. If
we can't control our skies that's a DoD/Security matter, even if the data is
coming to us in such a way as to be very difficult for us to process. Easy
answers aren't going to cut it.

------
DigitalTerminal
This is a really interesting article, thanks for sharing it. Whether the tic-
tacs are Chinese, American, or alien, this just seems to add the the evidence
that they are real, and the public nature of the patent application seems to
fit within the narrative of a managed disclosure.

~~~
sandworm101
>> ...the public nature of the patent application seems to fit within the
narrative of a managed disclosure.

No. The patent application fits with the narrative that the US patent process
is a total joke. This is an attempt to patent science fiction. This patent
will be used for everything but the production of a working technology. It
will be used by someone to aggrandize themselves and potentially milk
"investors". They will wave this "patent" in front of some naive old people,
probably in florida, to get them to sign over their life savings.

If anyone on this planet has practical warp drive technology, friction-free
motion through air/water, or gravity manipulation tech ... such things are
akin to the discovery of fire. In the real world, whether the inventor has a
patent or not is absolutely meaningless in the face of what such technology
would mean to mankind.

~~~
nyolfen
i don't think the US navy typically solicits donations from retirees. it seems
to me more likely to be misdirection for rival militaries as others have
suggested.

~~~
sandworm101
No, but crackpot inventors do. The charlatan tells people that he has invented
a magic airplane technology. He the points to the US navy patent as 'proof'
that such tech is possible. If his name is on the patent, all the better.

The US navy is a very large organization. I doubt this is a core program. This
is some crazy think-tank operating way way outside oversight. Or it is an
elaborate joke. Or an attempt to pad a resume before retirement. Or a "patent
something or you're out" box ticking.

------
bayareanative
Rush to provisionally-patent what may or may not exist. Monetize the little
green Martians' tech even before meeting them. Good thinking. Even if it
doesn't exist, it's still better to gamble on the off chance it does.

~~~
ru999gol
seems like you just go way out of your way to still be able to continue to
deny that the US is reverse engineering UFO tech for a long time.

------
bufferoverflow
Don't you need to show a working prototype to get a patent?

~~~
_ph_
No, you only need to describe the nature of your invention - you don't even
need to claim that it works or you could get it implemented.

~~~
dsr_
An awfully large number of patents wouldn't exist if there was a requirement
to show a working example of each claim.

I would prefer such a requirement.

~~~
partiallypro
That might be ok for some patents that require simple examples, but for
complex patents that a working model would cost millions... Good luck getting
an investor without a patent.

------
keldaris
The only thing scary about this is that apparently this "U.S. Naval Aviation
Enterprise", whatever it is, is a den of crackpots. As a European physicist
I'm not familiar enough with how research is managed in the U.S. military, so
the fact that this kind of pseudo-science is tolerated is mind boggling to me.
Anyone have any insight on what institutional factors might have led to this?

~~~
plutonorm
I've heard so many programmers tell me categorically that x way of doing
things is the right and true way. I've always been skeptical of these
viewpoints because they so often are wrong/baseless. It's human nature to put
walls around what we know and do not know based not upon what is actually
known or possible but upon how it makes us feel. Many people are naturally
inclined to dismiss ideas because it makes them feel good, others to accept
them and almost everyone is susceptible to group think. Negative knee jerk
reactions are so frequently driven by psychology, by them vs us, that I find
it very difficult to see any truth, or take anyone's opinion at face value.
The older I get and the more I know about my specialities the more I see that
so many people who profess expertise are merely wearing a mask and using it to
score social points without any real commitment to truth and so often they are
just... wrong.

But on the other hand I have been involved with some utterly clueless
organisations - where the group think is so profoundly wrong and backward that
it's a wonder they can get anything done...

So I would ask, can you point out a couple of things that I can fact check
which are wrong with the patent? I'm no physicist, but have an msc in maths

~~~
keldaris
A physics degree is helpful if you want to analyze the theoretical claims made
in the patent (which range from trivial, through ludicrous all the way to "not
even wrong"), but you don't need to do any of that to understand just how far
from reality (or even "hard" sci-fi) this patent is. Instead, just read the
patent, accept the contents at face value and consider the numbers the patent
itself claims. Quoting the article:

> The application was initially rejected by Patent Examiner Philip Bonzell on
> the grounds that "there is no such thing as a 'repulsive EM energy field,'"
> and that "when referring to the specifications as to ascertain about the
> microwave emitters needed in this system it is seen that for a high energy
> electromagnetic field to polarize a quantum vacuum as claimed it would take
> 10^9 [T]eslas and 10^18 V/m." That's roughly the equivalent to the magnetic
> strength generated by most magnetars and more electricity than what is
> produced by nuclear reactors.

The field values come straight from the patent itself, you can check that. So,
apart from all the silly theory, the patent simply assumes, as a matter of
fact, that you can easily obtain magnetic fields that are only found in the
most extreme conditions in the universe (and are many orders of magnitude away
from anything we can conceivably create), use utterly ludicrous amounts of
energy and achieve all of this in a portable craft of some sort. How much fact
checking and experience do you really need to see that this is not merely
beyond our engineering capabilities, but rather beyond even the bounds of sane
science fiction?

~~~
adamiscool8
The Navy CTO explains in his follow-up letter [0] that the initial findings on
generating these high intensity fields have been positive. Are you asserting
that's an impossibility?

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/ZTL1B5h.png](https://i.imgur.com/ZTL1B5h.png)

~~~
keldaris
Of course. The "initial findings" on what's eventually expected to become a
huge multi-billion device capable of breaking field intensity records for a
picosecond or two are completely irrelevant to the idea of a relatively
compact mobile craft that requires even more intense fields for basic
operation. That's barely a step away from saying "these values are perfectly
fine - magnetars exist, don't they?".

If the criterion for patentability is describing a "future state of the
possible" where "possible" just means "might, under a highly generous
interpretation, not directly contradict the basic laws of physics... maybe",
is there a patent for a Dyson sphere yet?

------
est31
See also: fast movers program.

~~~
svd4anything
[https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25784/what-u-s-
submari...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25784/what-u-s-submariners-
actually-say-about-detection-of-so-called-unidentified-submerged-objects)

------
sandworm101
Obligatory Xkcd:

[https://xkcd.com/1235/](https://xkcd.com/1235/)

------
xibalba
The high proportion of green usernames in this thread makes this all feel a
lot like an info op.

~~~
TeMPOraL
What?

I counted 3 green user names and total of 6 comments they made. The thread has
73 comments in total as I'm writing this.

~~~
glenneroo
Not to mention any serious info op attempts would have accounts created on
every relevant forum and thus wouldn't require creating very-obviously new
accounts to further their agenda.

------
gingabriska
Since this patent is not "secret" even tho there are ways to keep it secret
and heck you don't even need to patent it if you've such technology.

What does a patent say? Basically that you can create and use it today which
would be alarming for most around the world.

What if it's a bait for other intelligence agencies/spies working for foreign
governments in US defense area.

And if someone tried to gather info about this tech within US defense
ecosystem, they'll be caught without US government risking anything.

It does look like a bait to me, publicise that you poses a technology which
makes all your enemies obsolete then wait and watch who is coming or helping
them steal it from you.

~~~
fnord77
surely intelligence agencies are smart enough to realize this is probably bait
and not bother with it?

~~~
flycaliguy
Unless it’s just a bread crumb which links to other bread crumbs which all
lead to nothing at all.

It could resemble an optical illusion we’ve been projecting around every once
and a while?

------
egfx
Related comment about it being related to a recent cern experiment..

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18367198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18367198)

