NASA, the Moon and AntiGravity.
He is the author of UFOs and AntiGravity: Piece For a JigSaw and The Cosmic Matrix: Piece For a JigSaw Part 2. $37.95
Antigravity PhD thesis  YouTube
It would appear that during the late 1950s, or perhaps early 1960s, the US military was funding antigravity research at the University of Detroit. There are little mentions of it here and there, but so far nothing detailed has been turned up by Mythic Detroit's elite band of . So far we've got the following:
Cramp examines antigravity effects and theorizes that this superscience used by the craftndescribed in detail in the bookncan lift mankind into a new level of technology, transportation and understanding of the universe.
The Felber ‘Antigravity’ Thesis and Cosmology
All approaches to the problem of quantum gravity agree thatsomething must be said about the relationship between gravitation andquantized matter. These various approaches can be catalogued invarious ways, depending on the relative weight assigned to generalrelativity and quantum field theory. Some approaches view generalrelativity as in need of correction and quantum field theory asgenerally applicable, while others view quantum field theory asproblematic and general relativity as having a more universalstatus. Still others view the theories in a more evenhanded manner,perhaps with both simply amounting to distinct limits of a deepertheory. It has often been suggested, since the earliest days ofquantum gravity research, that bringing quantum field theory andgeneral relativity together might serve to cure their respectivesingularity problems (the former resulting from bad high frequencybehaviour of fields; the latter resulting from certain kinds ofgravitational collapse). This hope does seem to have been borne out inmany of the current approaches. Roger Penrose has even argued that thejoint consideration of gravitation and quantum theory could resolvethe infamous quantum measurement problem (see Penrose 2001; see alsothe section on the measurement problem in the entry on ). The basic idea of Penrose's proposal is fairly simple tograsp: when there is wavepacket spreading of the centre of mass ofsome body, there results a greater imprecision in the spacetimestructure associated with the spreading wavepacket, and this destroysthe coherence of the distant parts of the wavefunction. There aredifficulties in distinguishing the gravitationally induced collapsethat Penrose proposes from the effective collapse induced by quantumtheory itself, thanks to decoherence—Joy Christian (2005) hassuggested that by observing oscillations in the flavor ratios ofneutrinos originating at cosmological distances one could eliminatethe confounding effects of environmental decoherence.
By far the two most popular approaches are string theory and loopquantum gravity. The former is an example of an approach to quantumgravity in which the gravitational field is not quantized; rather, adistinct theory is quantized which happens to coincide with generalrelativity at low energies. The latter is an approach involving(constrained) canonical quantization, albeit of a version of generalrelativity based on a different choice of variables than the usualgeometrodynamical, metricbased variables. We cover the basic detailsof each of these in the following subsections.
Cal and the amazing antigravity machine
The problem of time is closely connected with a general puzzle aboutthe ontology associated with “quantum spacetime”. Quantumtheory in general resists any straightforward ontological reading, andthis goes double for quantum gravity. In quantum mechanics,one has particles, albeit with indefinite properties. In quantum fieldtheory, one again has particles (at least in suitably symmetricspacetimes), but these are secondary to the fields, which again arethings, albeit with indefinite properties. On the face of it, the onlydifference in quantum gravity is that spacetime itself becomes a kindof quantum field, and one would perhaps be inclined to say that theproperties of spacetime become indefinite. But space and timetraditionally play important roles in individuating objects and theirproperties—in fact a field is in some sense a set of propertiesof spacetime points — and so the quantization of such raises realproblems for ontology.
However, this encodes several pieces of misinformation making it hardto make sense of the claim that general relativity and canonicaltheories cannot be “reconciled”. The canonical frameworkis simply a tool for constructing theories, and one that makesquantization an easier prospect. As a matter of historical fact thecanonical formulation of general relativity is a completed project,and has been carried out in a variety of ways, using compact spacesand noncompact spaces, and with a range of canonical variables. Ofcourse, general relativity, like Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism,possesses gauge symmetries, so it is a constrained theory thatresults, and one must employ the method of constrained Hamiltoniansystems. However, there is no question that general relativity iscompatible with the canonical analysis of theories, and the fact thattime looks a little strange in this context is simply because theformalism is attempting to capture the dynamics of generalrelativity. In any case, the peculiar nature of general relativity andquantum gravity, with respect to the treatment of time, resurfaces inarguably the most covariant of approaches, the Feynman pathintegralapproach. In this case that central task is to compute the amplitudefor going from an initial state to a final state (where these stateswill be given in terms of boundary data on a pair of initial and finalhypersurfaces). The computation of this propagator proceeds àla sumoverhistories: one counts to the number of possible spacetimesthat might interpolate between the initial and finalhypersurfaces. However, one cannot get around the fact that generalrelativity is a theory with gauge freedom, and so whenever one hasdiffeomorphic initial and final hypersurfaces, the propagator will betrivial.
Gravity Research Foundation  Wikipedia

The Gravity Research Foundation is an organization ..
19/08/2016 · Tesla’s antigravity research in use in dozens of secretive military projects

“It is my thesis that flying ..
Tesla’s AntiGravity Research in Use in Dozens of Secretive Military Projects

Antigravity Lifter You Build and Fly  Information …
26/05/2017 · Mathematicall proof, that mass does not attract mass
Antigravity Lifter You Build and Fly
Wüthrich (2005, pp. 779–80) has argued that the very existence ofapproaches to quantum gravity that do not involve the quantization ofthe gravitational field means that quantization of the gravitationalfield has to be a matter. However, this seems torest on a mistake. It might still be the case that there are reasonsof logical consistency forbidding the union of a classical and quantumfield even though there are entirely distinct nonquantizationapproaches. For example, string theory does not quantize thegravitational field; however, it is clearly wrong to say that theexistence of this position would be ruled out if the various nogotheorems outlawing hybrid classicalquantum theories were true. Thefact that one can isolate states corresponding to gravitons in thestring spectrum stands quite independent from issues over theinteraction of classical and quantum field. The question of thenecessity of quantization (as a result of coupling a classicalgravitational field to quantum fields) should be held separate fromthe prospect of producing a quantum theory of gravity that does notinvolve gravitational field quantization, for both input theories, fordescribing the classical and quantum fields, could be fundamentallywrong at high energies, requiring entirely new principles. However, astronger argument against the impossibility hybrids is provided byJames Mattingly, who points out that since there are satisfiableaxioms for semiclassical theories, inconsistency cannot be establishedin general (2009, p. 381).
Anti·gravity Object Modeling  YouTube
A batch of new approaches based on analogies with condensed matterphysics and hydrodynamics point to another way in which gravity canescape quantization, though not in a truly fundamentalsense. According to such approaches, gravity is emergent in the sensethat the metric (or connection) variables, and other variablesrepresenting gravitational features, are collective variables thatonly appear at energies away from the Planck scale. In other words,gravity is a purely macroscopic, low energy phenomenon and generalrelativity is an effective field theory. This leaves the task ofactually filling in the details of the microscopic structure ofspacetime (the ‘atoms of spacetime’) out of which the lowenergy collective variables emerge (see Hu, 2009, for a conceptuallyoriented review of such approaches; Crowther 2014 provides a detailedphilosophical analysis). As Rovelli notes (2007, p. 1304), the merefact that the gravitational field is an emergent, collective variabledoes not thereby imply an absence of quantum effects, and it ispossible that collective variables too are governed by quantumtheory.
Analysing Managers Behaviour(2)
In earlier research on quantum gravity it was often supposed thatif there was at least one quantum field in the world together with thegravitational field, then given the universal coupling of thegravitational field, it must follow that the quantization of the onefield somehow infects the gravitational field, implying that it mustnecessarily have quantum properties too. The arguments basicallyinvolve the consideration of a mass prepared in a superposition ofposition eigenstates. If the gravitational field remained classical(and, therefore, not constrained by the uncertainty relations) thenone could violate the uncertainty relations by simply makingmeasurements of the gravitational field, discovering the properties ofthe quantized matter to which it was coupled. However, all attempts atmaking this argument stick have so far failed, meaning that there isno logical necessity demanding that we quantize the gravitationalfield. Given that we also seemingly lack experimental reasons forquantization of the gravitational field (since we have not observedevidence of its quantum properties), several physicists (andphilosophers) have questioned the programme as it stands. It is, theyargue, a matter for experiment to decide, not logic. Note, however,that this does not mean that the project of quantum gravity itselfrests on unsteady ground: if there are quantum fields andgravitational fields in the world, then given the nature of gravity,we need to say about the manner in which theyinteract. What is being questioned is whether this means that gravitycannot itself remain fundamentally classical while interacting withquantum fields. After all, as far as all our experiments show: gravityis classical and matter is quantum. This pessimistic argument isusually traced back to Rosenfeld, though he wavered somewhat on thematter (see DeWitt and Rickles, 2011, p. 164 and p. 170, forRosenfeld's original arguments).