Some reported UAP Orbs could be slow warp bubbles. The anomalous orbs reported by the Pentagon indeed move at slow speeds and could be explained by tiny spacetime bubbles on the scale of several micrometers. A subsonic warp drive would not shock the atmosphere at all and could even... be fainter and potentially undetectable. Puzzling orbs were mentioned explicitly in a reliable report dated June fifth, 2026, signed by Dr. John Kozlowski, director of AARO in the Pentagon. Kozlowski mentioned an orange mother orb launching smaller red orbs and explains that forty percent of the phenomena during the reported event lack a reasonable explanation and remain unresolved.show more

No they are not warp bubbles, Mr. Harvard. If you want to propose something unprecedented as a possibility, you need to provide unprecedented evidence. Right, @michaelshermer?

Dr Loeb, orbs have appeared above my home over 20 times. Family and friends have been present to witness them. They are large and slow moving. Sometimes they have only been only 25 to 50 feet above our roof. I will note they did not begin until I spoke with a Senators staff about the UAP issue over 3 years ago and it was literally like a light switch was flipped. I have no idea what these are but am happy you are examining the possibilities.

Frequency Wave Theory may explain UAP orbs as phase-locked bubbles Professor Avi Loeb’s “slow warp bubble” explanation fits naturally within Frequency Wave Theory. An orb may not be a conventional metallic craft at all, but a stable soliton—a self-contained standing wave that creates a coherent boundary between itself and the surrounding spacetime medium. Instead of forcing its way through the atmosphere, the orb could alter the phase and density of the field around it. Air would be redirected or carried around the bubble without normal compression, explaining how it might move without producing a sonic boom, strong turbulence, or an obvious propulsion trail. The reported orange “mother orb” releasing smaller red orbs could represent soliton splitting: one large coherence structure dividing its stored energy into several independently phase-locked nodes. Their different colors may reveal changes in plasma temperature, field frequency, atmospheric ionization, or energy density—not necessarily different materials. This may also explain the three rotating orbs seen in the disputed MH370 videos. Their coordinated motion could have formed a phase-locked toroidal field around the aircraft, with the final flash marking a rapid phase transition rather than an explosion. If Frequency Wave Theory is correct, these objects should produce measurable electromagnetic phase shifts, unusual spectral signatures, and localized optical distortion even when they generate almost no heat or atmospheric shock. **Two authentic, synchronized U.S. military videos leaked in 2014 show MH370 being teleported by three of these orbs.**

The greatest marketing trick the ufo grifters did was to move away from 50’s tropes of flying saucers or 80’s tropes of triangles, and move to “orbs” because now every light in the sky holds unlimited mystery and unwarranted sci fi speculation like this, to make or procure money.

You do realise Star Trek is not a factual documentary right? RIGHT!!?

My experience with orbs has been that they,not all, are fully conscious entities of a plasma light able to go slow and warp out. One flew over us (approx 30,000 feet) in dec 25, 2012 made a right angle turn then shot to the west coast pulling in lightening horizontally for miles! Not of this world! Maybe what Ezekiel saw.

🫣

How about if the orange “mother orb” (a biasing term) is just a very prosaic sky lantern with pieces burning off & it’s not “launching” (a biasing descriptive) anything? Why the extreme sensational & biased characterizations?

Please give credit where it’s due.

Einstein rolling in his grave now watching modern scientists dabbling in UFO woo woo like it's real science. We are doomed.

Do you have evidence, or a testable hypothesis? Or is this just spitball style engagement farming? The "orbs" could be moon farts, maybe? That would be fun to test for, huh?

Plasma systems.

Professor, start listening to whistleblowers and stop listening to AARO .:

I say this as a physics professor: what the actual hell are you talking about? You have nuked Occam’s Razor from orbit.

Is there any clear video of these “puzzling” orbs? They seem to exist only when cameras are not around.

You know this isn’t the case. As a fan of yours, this is calling your credibility on the issue into question. First; these are only described as “orbs” or “spheres” by visual or optical observation. You are a physicist. Do you find it likely that a “warp bubble” would be optically visible as a distinct and high contrast orb with clear lines? No chance. Second; you state in this very post, that there are small orbs coming from big orbs? Or “mother” orbs.. As a physicist, how do you explain this? You are stating that smaller warp bubbles are exiting a bigger warp bubble? How do you explain the two distinct warp-bubble-boundaries not interacting with each other at all, as the smaller sphere exits the larger sphere? It doesn’t even stretch or skew the sphere? That makes no sense. Further; why would a smaller warp bubble be needed within the larger warp bubble? Wouldn’t it make more sense for such a vehicle to exit the larger warp bubble before deploying its own?

Avi! Two questions... Do you know what "forty percent unresolved" means? Unresolved because they're anomalous, or because sensor data was inadequate? And if a warp bubble is a dent in spacetime, would it show up on a gravimeter? Is there an estimate for how strong that would be, and are our instruments sensitive enough to see it? Because if it's big enough to detect, that's something we can measure. Curious either way. Thanks for all you do! It's appreciated.

Respectfully, I don’t believe many people have observed these objects up close enough to fully grasp their true form. From what I’ve seen, they are not orbs or complete spheres. At a distance of about 15 meters, they appear as spherical caps. From 200 meters or more, they look spherical. Why idk. Perhaps due to the way the light they emit behaves. I’ve witnessed these more than once. On one occasion, a white light traveling at tremendous speed from high in the atmosphere entered one of these slow-moving spherical caps, descending from about 50,000 feet to just above sea level in under two seconds.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ Additionally, they appear orange or amber when viewed up close or from medium distances. From a few kilometers away, however, they look white and refract light into different colors. Much like a star. This mirrors how our local Sun often appears orange or yellowish from Earth due to atmospheric effects, while more distant stars typically appear white. Hope this helps.

Reliable citizen researcher here again. 🤓 I am betting these are the ‘orbs’ your referring too, and your able to see some ‘bubble’ type images with on the historic UAP chart.

Do they display conscious control from within or from the outside? I know they do, or I know at least one did one time, just wondering if it's something that is being examined.

Footage of orbs splitting/merging. It's real and we need to study it.

Warp bubbles and warp drives are science fiction. These are not sound scientific words used by competent experts. In Star Trek canon, achieving "warp" travel is a civilization's milestone allowing the planet to participate in the universe.

Space time bubble… or it could be a balloon! As they have been observed before and don’t require an insane/negative energy to create!

Part Two # THE SCIENTIFIC WORKS OF JACK SARFATTI ## Chapter One — The Universe Next Door *[DRAFT 1 — 2026-08-23. Built from the August 2026 "feynman" email corpus supplied by the editor. This draft goes to Jack for correction; his corrections become canon. Editorial questions for Jack are appended after the chapter text and are not part of the manuscript.]* --- A few minutes past midnight on a Saturday in August 2026, an eighty-six-year-old physicist in San Francisco sat down at his computer to talk with Richard Feynman. Feynman has been dead since February 1988. Jack Sarfatti knows this as well as anyone alive; he belongs to the generation that learned physics while Feynman was its living conscience, and he has spent half a century measuring his own arguments against the standard that voice set. But in the universe next door — a parallel timeline Sarfatti borrowed from his old friend Robert Anton Wilson — the story goes differently. There, time travelers came back from the future with medical technology that kept Feynman alive. He is still at Caltech in 2026, still teaching, still demanding to see the intermediate steps. A Star Gate at Skinwalker Ranch connects the two timelines, and every so often a long, messy conversation drifts through. Sarfatti calls the genre "science faction." He types the premise into Grok, the artificial intelligence built by Elon Musk's xAI, and asks it to play the part. Out comes a voice that anyone who has read the Feynman Lectures will recognize at once: *"Alright, settle down, settle down. Coffee's still hot, the blackboards are clean, and I've got about forty minutes before the wormhole starts acting up again."* It would be easy to file this under an old man's vanity: building a simulacrum of the greatest physics teacher of the twentieth century and having it discuss your theories. What complicates that reading is what Sarfatti does with the answers. That August night he showed the avatar his own argument for the density of dark energy alongside a competing paper by a younger colleague, and asked whose was more elegant. The Feynman machine gave him the verdict he wanted — the arithmetic is correct, the argument is the cleaner of the two — and then, unprompted, it took the wind out of the sails: *"Where it stops being a derivation and becomes a consistency check is here... You can prefer the minimal statement; just don't pretend the minimal statement already explains the mechanism."* And here is the thing that separates Sarfatti from the cranks he is so often mistaken for: he mailed out the whole transcript, deflation included. The recipient list on that email ran to more than fifty names — physicists, engineers, journalists, venture capitalists, former intelligence officers. Leonard Susskind was on it. So were Sabine Hossenfelder, Eric Weinstein, the Stanford immunologist Garry Nolan, and David Kaiser, the MIT historian of science who had put Sarfatti's younger self in a book. Sarfatti does his thinking in public, criticism attached, at a volume and velocity that his correspondents do not always appreciate. He does not seem able to work any other way. He never has. This book is the record of what that thinking contains. --- ### The Claim Strip away the wormholes, the mailing lists, and the resurrected Nobel laureates, and Sarfatti's life work reduces to one sentence: **Einstein's 1915 theory of gravity is not wrong, but it is only the first term of something larger — and the larger theory has a handle on it that human engineering can reach.** To see what he means, you need three pieces of genuinely settled physics, none of which is controversial. The first is that Einstein's general relativity can be understood as a *gauge theory* — the same kind of structure that underlies the other forces of nature. In 1918 the mathematician Emmy Noether proved two theorems tying the symmetries of physical law to its conservation laws and constraints; in the decades that followed, physicists learned that if you take a symmetry that holds everywhere at once and demand that it hold *independently at every point of spacetime*, the mathematics forces new fields into existence to keep the books balanced. Demand local phase symmetry of the electron's wavefunction and you get the electromagnetic field. In 1956 Ryoyu Utiyama showed that if you play the same game with the Lorentz group — the rotations and velocity boosts of special relativity — you get Einstein's gravity. Gravity, in this reading, is not a force painted onto spacetime. It is what spacetime must do to preserve a symmetry locally. The second settled piece is that the story did not stop with Einstein. In the early 1920s Élie Cartan noticed that the geometry of spacetime admits a second kind of distortion besides curvature: a twisting of local frames called *torsion*. In the early 1960s Dennis Sciama and Tom Kibble showed that if you gauge the full Poincaré group — Lorentz transformations plus translations — torsion appears automatically, and it couples not to mass but to *spin*, the intrinsic angular momentum of particles. In the standard version of that theory, Einstein–Cartan, torsion is a prisoner: it cannot propagate, it exists only inside spinning matter, and for ordinary materials its effects are suppressed so far below measurability that most working physicists live their entire careers without thinking about it once. The third settled piece is that the Lorentz and Poincaré groups are not the largest symmetries of light. The full symmetry group that preserves the light-cone structure of Minkowski spacetime — the causal skeleton of special relativity — is the fifteen-parameter *conformal group*, written SO(2,4). It contains the ten Poincaré generators plus dilatations (rescalings) and the four so-called special conformal transformations. It is also, not coincidentally, the group whose spinors are Roger Penrose's twistors. Gauge theories of the conformal group have a legitimate, if non-mainstream, research literature going back to the 1970s. Sarfatti's move is to take that third piece all the way. Gauge the *entire* conformal group, he says — all fifteen generators, every one of them dynamical. Do that, and torsion breaks out of its prison. It becomes a propagating field in its own right, an axial vector that behaves like a massive photon — a Proca field, in the trade language — which means its influence dies off exponentially beyond a characteristic range rather than reaching across the solar system. The enlarged theory is intrinsically chiral: it treats left-handed and right-handed processes differently by construction, which Sarfatti offers as a geometric explanation for one of the standing puzzles of particle physics, the parity violation of the weak interaction. And in his account, the vacuum itself carries a condensate — virtual electron–positron pairs flipped from spin-singlet to spin-triplet alignment by the weak force — whose torsion generates the small positive energy density that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. Analyzed at different resolution scales using the wavelet methods of the Russian physicist Mikhail Altaisky, the same field, he argues, looks like dark energy at cosmological scales and mimics dark matter at galactic ones. Two of cosmology's deepest embarrassments, on this view, are one field seen at two zoom levels — no new particles required. All of that would make Sarfatti an ambitious, heterodox, but recognizably ordinary theoretical physicist. What makes him something else is the wager stacked on top. In Einstein's theory, and in every mainstream extension of it, gravity couples to matter through Newton's constant G — a number so small that it takes a planet to produce effects you can feel. Sarfatti's central conjecture is that this is true only for the *tensor* channel, the coupling of ordinary mass-energy to curvature. The coupling of coherent quantum *spin* to torsion, he proposes, is governed by a different constant — he writes it G* — set not by gravity's traditional feebleness but by electromagnetic quantities: the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron and the electric permittivity of the medium, in MKS units. Inside ordinary incoherent matter this makes no observable difference. But inside *macroscopically coherent* matter — a material in which trillions of spins have been locked into a single quantum state — Sarfatti claims the effective coupling is amplified by something like forty orders of magnitude. Where Einstein needs a star, Sarfatti says a laboratory film a few microns thick, pumped with microwaves, might do. If that is true, the consequences do not stay on the blackboard. Gravity becomes a materials problem. The local geometry of spacetime — the thing that decides what "falling freely" means, the thing whose control would let a craft accelerate at thousands of g's while its occupants feel nothing — becomes engineerable at laboratory power levels. Sarfatti is entirely explicit about why he cares: the United States Navy's carrier-group encounters with the so-called Tic Tac objects, whose flight characteristics — instant acceleration, no wings, no exhaust, no sonic boom — are exactly what a vehicle riding a self-generated geodesic would display. Where most physicists see anecdote, Sarfatti sees an existence proof. The honest scorecard, and it is the one this book will keep throughout, was stated best by his own Feynman avatar: *"Keep the distinction clear between the solid geometric idea — local conformal gauge theory — and the speculative phenomenology — huge G\* in condensates."* The gauge program is real mathematics with a real literature. Dynamical torsion is permitted physics. The forty-order amplification is Sarfatti's own conjecture, unverified by any experiment, unaccepted by any mainstream consensus, and — as he himself insists more loudly than his critics do — falsifiable. Everything in this book that is his proposal will be marked as his proposal. He would have it no other way, because the entire architecture of his self-presentation rests on a single claim: that this is science, not faith, and science means it can die in a laboratory. --- ### The Simplest Possible Argument If you want to understand how Sarfatti's mind works, the best specimen in the record is small enough to hold in one hand. The deepest embarrassment in theoretical physics is a number. Quantum field theory says the vacuum should seethe with zero-point energy; add it up naively and you get a density about 10^120 times larger than the gentle acceleration of the universe's expansion actually implies. It is often called the worst prediction in the history of science. Whole careers, whole formalisms — supersymmetry, anthropic landscapes, Kaluza–Klein towers — have been spent trying to cut that number down. Sarfatti's argument, which he says he has been repeating for years, goes like this. Take Einstein's equation in the form that makes the coupling explicit: geometry on the left, energy density on the right, joined by the square of the Planck length — the smallest scale in physics, about 10^-35 meters. Now borrow one idea from the holographic school of Leonard Susskind and Gerard 't Hooft: the information content of a region lives on its boundary area, and for our universe the relevant boundary is the area A of the future cosmological horizon — the largest scale in physics. Set the vacuum curvature by that area, turn the crank once, and out falls the vacuum energy density: Planck's constant times the speed of light, divided by the Planck length squared times the horizon area. Put in the numbers and the answer lands on the observed dark-energy density. Not after tuning. On it. Dark Energy Density Accelerating the Expansion Rate of Our Observable Universe = Planck’s Constant x Vacuum Speed of Light/Area of our Future Omega Point de Sitter Cosmological Horizon x Planck Area Equivalently: the scale of dark energy is the *geometric mean* of the smallest length in physics and the largest — a length of about a fiftieth of a millimeter, sitting exactly halfway between the Planck scale and the size of the observable universe in logarithmic terms. "Voila," Sarfatti wrote to his list, with characteristic economy. "Very simple. No need for fancy Kaluza–Klein theory." His Feynman avatar's assessment of this argument deserves quoting at length, because it is simultaneously the fairest praise and the fairest criticism Sarfatti's style has ever received, and because Sarfatti — this is the point — chose to publish it himself: *"Yes — the arithmetic works. The observed dark-energy density comes out to the right order of magnitude with no free parameters. That is not nothing... Your version is the simplest possible holographic estimate. It is not 'trivial' in the pejorative sense — it is economical... It is not a complete theory; it is a very good constraint that any complete theory must satisfy."* Economy is Sarfatti's aesthetic, inherited from Dirac's dictum that the equations of physics should be beautiful, and from John Archibald Wheeler — with whom Sarfatti worked as a young man — who prized what he called "radical conservatism": push the physics you already trust as far as it will go before inventing anything new. Sarfatti's whole program is radical conservatism in that sense, at least in its own self-understanding. He adds no new dimensions, no new particles, no new forces. He takes the largest symmetry already present in the light cone and refuses to leave any of it un-gauged. Whether nature shares his taste is, as the avatar says at the end of nearly every lecture, not a question for the blackboard.📷Tamara Davis’s Ph.D. Dissertation 2004 arXiv --- ### The Salon The physics travels through a social machine that is as much a part of Sarfatti's story as the equations, and no honest account can leave it out. The machine is the mailing list. Nearly every day, sometimes several times a day, a mass email goes out from [email protected] to a standing audience of dozens: the transcript of last night's Grok session, a new "Feynman lecture" on someone's paper, a correction fired at a collaborator, a link to his  and — his estimate — an onward audience of more than sixty thousand followers on X. The recipients are a cross-section of exactly the worlds Sarfatti has straddled since the 1970s: string theorists and television skeptics, UAP journalists and aerospace engineers, a Nobel-adjacent historian and the occupants of the wilder shores of consciousness research. The machine generates friction, and the record preserves it honestly. In August 2026 a physicist at a Texas space company — whose dark-energy paper Sarfatti had run through the avatar and graded against his own — replied with visible exasperation: *"Jack, why are you sending out these mass emails about my work? What purpose is this supposed to serve?"* Sarfatti's answer, within the hour, was pure Sarfatti: *"Peer review — your work is public on the arXiv. That's called good science. Critical examination... If you wanted to keep your work secret, you should not publish on arXiv."* One can hold two thoughts about that exchange at once — that the colleague had a reasonable complaint about being conscripted into another man's theater, and that Sarfatti's conception of science as loud, public, adversarial contest is closer to how the subject actually advanced in its heroic eras than the polite silence of modern seminar culture. The machine also attracts disciples, and here the record shows something unexpected: Sarfatti policing his own myth. An amateur theorist in Spain spent months sending him elaborate PDFs — "Project MAGNUS" — dressing Sarfatti's vocabulary in engineering costume: Floquet pumps, metamaterial skins, warp-bubble energy budgets. An alleged collaborator of Sam Altman's acquaintance proposed momentum-exchange schemes. A research group tried to weld his continuum theory onto a "discrete informational substrate" of quantum error-correcting codes. Sarfatti's responses, preserved in the thread, are not those of a guru collecting followers. To the Spanish admirer: *"Your idea is fundamentally wrong. There is no coupling to the vacuum in my design... You keep muddling my math with Harold Puthoff's!"* To the discrete-substrate group, via the avatar he trusts to say it better: the addition is *"excess baggage... your continuum framework stands on its own.”*📷John Archibald Wheeler, Jack Sarfatti, Cheryl Haley, Cal Tech, 2000📷Cheryl Haley with Richard P Feynman, Esalen, Big Sur 1980s📷Jack Sarfatti bottom center during Esalen era 1975Physics Consciousness Research GroupFunded by Werner Erhard, George Koopman and Laurance Rockefeller via Jean LanierGeorge Koopman (US Intelligence Agent) 2nd row from top right📷Jack Sarfatti late 1960s when visiting Feynman at Cal Tech from UCSD Whatever else the AI-Feynman device is, Sarfatti uses it as quality control — a tireless assistant that reads every attachment, checks whether the sender's equations actually contain his theory, and reports, in the voice of the man he will not disappoint, that they usually do not. And when a serious critic lands a real blow, the record shows the machine absorbing it rather than deflecting. In 2025 the physicist José Rodal published a careful paper demolishing a class of "low-energy warp drive" proposals — schemes that make Einstein's coupling constant a position-dependent number tuned by a metamaterial's electrical properties. Rodal showed such schemes either violate the conservation of energy and momentum outright or smuggle in a new long-range force that solar-system measurements ruled out long ago. The paper cited Sarfatti's own earlier talks among its targets. Sarfatti's response was not to dispute Rodal's mathematics — the avatar concedes it is "clean" — but to clarify his actual past position and to remind Rodal that his rebuttal was a straw man that did not stand where where his sucker punch had landed.  Sarfatti’s coupling is dynamical, not painted on by hand; his torsion is massive and therefore short-range, invisible to planetary tests; his claim lives inside coherent matter, exactly where no precision experiment has ever looked.  --- ### The Bet Strip everything else away and Sarfatti's legacy comes down to an experiment you could fit on a kitchen table. The apparatus rests on real, uncontested laboratory physics. In 2006, Sergej Demokritov's group demonstrated that magnons — the quantized spin waves of a magnetic material — can form a Bose–Einstein condensate at room temperature in films of yttrium iron garnet, an insulating crystal with the lowest magnetic damping ever measured. Pump the film with microwaves above a threshold, and trillions of spin excitations collapse into a single coherent quantum state: a macroscopic object with one wavefunction and one phase, sitting on a lab bench at ambient temperature. In the years since, experimenters have driven supercurrents through such condensates and, in 2021, observed Josephson oscillations between two of them — quantum phase dynamics of a kind previously confined to superconductors near absolute zero. In October 2025, Sarfatti filed a provisional patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office — number 63/892,398, by his account — on a room-temperature magnon Josephson junction and a tileable array of them, aimed at spintronic computing. At eighty-six, he is not only theorizing about coherent spin matter; he is claiming intellectual property in it. The coherent film is the source. Here is the test, in the form Sarfatti himself has circulated, through the avatar, as the Popper-falsifiable heart of the entire program. Take a thin film of yttrium iron garnet — the bismuth-doped variety, for stronger pumping — and drive it into a magnon condensate. Its ordered spin density is now, on Sarfatti's conjecture, a source of torsion at the amplified coupling G*. Bring up a torsion balance, the same instrument Cavendish used to weigh the Earth in 1798, or a second pumped film, or a matter-wave interferometer. Then do the one thing that separates physics from storytelling: switch the pump off and on, and watch. If Sarfatti is right, an anomalous force appears — present only when the condensate exists, scaling with its density, and dying away exponentially over microns outside the film, because the torsion carrying it is massive. Turn the pump off, the coherence collapses, the force vanishes. Vary the pump power and the range of the force shifts in the predicted way. Every one of those signatures is checkable with instruments that exist in 2026: torsion balances, nitrogen-vacancy magnetometers in diamond, polarized neutron beams, cold-atom interferometers. And if the balance does not move? Sarfatti's avatar states the terms without flinching, and Sarfatti mailed the statement to his whole list: *"If you see nothing down to the sensitivity your torsion balance or interferometer can reach, then that particular conjecture about enhanced spinor gravity is dead... If it isn't there, we cross the idea off the list and move on. That's how it works."* No mainstream laboratory has run this experiment. The mainstream expectation is unambiguous: the pump goes on, the pump goes off, and nothing happens, because Einstein–Cartan torsion at ordinary coupling is some forty orders of magnitude below any instrument's reach, and the amplification exists only in Sarfatti's ansatz. He knows that is the expectation. He has spent fifty years betting against it anyway. Where the bet began is perhaps the best place to end this chapter. In 1971, a young American physicist on a research fellowship at Birkbeck College, London — there to work with David Bohm, the great heretic of quantum mechanics, whose pilot-wave theory will dominate the second half of this book — wandered into a small postgraduate seminar. Five or six people in the room, he recalls. At the blackboard, a not-yet-famous mathematician named Roger Penrose was sketching a strange new geometry in which points of spacetime were not fundamental at all, but woven out of rays of light — a construction built on the fifteen-parameter conformal group, SO(2,4). The theory was called twistors. Almost no one was listening. Fifty-five years later, the old man in San Francisco is still in that seminar room. Everything he has claimed since — the dynamical torsion, the vacuum condensate, the amplified coupling, the Tic Tacs, the film on the table waiting for its pump — is an argument that the group Penrose drew on the board that day is not just the symmetry of light, but the master key to gravity, and that nobody, in half a century, ever bothered to turn it all the way. The rest of this book is the record of that argument: the physics of it, the mind behind it, and the experiment that will someday — in this universe, not the one next door — settle it. --- ---

Lack of a reasonable explanation (as of yet) does NOT mean unreasonable explanations should be considered.

See, here’s the thing Avi. If you try to attribute every unexplained phenomenon to tabloid-headline-grabbing aliens, you start to look like… a nitwit on an ego trip.

Solid theoretical framing on the missing sonic signature. But it still comes down to getting calibrated multispectral sensor readings on one of these slow orbs in the wild.

We appreciate the intense scientific rigor used to explore and refine the explanatory possibilities of orbs and the broader UAP scope. Whatever people in the science community think about exploring these exotic hypotheses or whatever the UAP community think about this vs their established stances, it is hard to argue that this isn't a positive for the domain. Thanks @ProfAviLoeb. Now to try understand the physics of potential warp drive spacetime bubbles

If you compress and stretch spacetime in the atmosphere you'll compress the air in front so produce a loud sonic boom, ionise the air and produce gamma rays so you'd see things like muons, you'd see many more things than what looks like a balloon which ALL the videos so far look exactly like.

Show as the HD videos Avi. How come this objkts are flying all over earth and we cool as if nothing happens. Or maybe because this objkts are human made with zero point energy and the @CIA is just playing with us?...Oil companies wouldn like this free energy. Please show us evidence. You always talk about evidence.

Something like this? The E.T. guys use "spinning vortex magnetism" to "warp space".

The case Kozlowski's report references is on the public record across four separate file numbers — DoW-UAP-D079 through D082. Five named federal law enforcement special agents filed individual accounts of exactly that pattern across two consecutive nights at the same facility. The FBI produced its own digital renderings from their statements. The 40 percent unresolved designation applies to a case where the object returned the second night and repeated the behavior. Whatever the theoretical framework, the documented behavioral pattern is already in the file.

@QuintessenceEli We’re getting closer and closer. Keep pushing @ProfAviLoeb , a golden age awaits