Unknown Directed Energy Technologies, Part Two:
Ben Rich's Statements: The Implications of Secret Technologies and Hidden Physics
Joseph P. Farrell
Copyright 2011 by Joseph P. Farrell
(I would like to thank my friend and colleague Michael Schratt for graciously allowing me to quote from an article of his, “Ben Rich and the Secret of the Skunk Works” that will appear in Open Minds magazine later this year. All quotations of Mr. Rich that appear here appear in Mr. Schratt’s article, and have also been cited in numerous articles by other researchers.)
A. Biographical Overview
Ben Rich, the well-known chief of Lockheed’s “skunk works,” the secret development facility responsible for, among other things, the development of stealth technology and America’s F-117 stealth fighter, was born in Manilla, the Philippines on June 18, 1925. Fascinated with aircraft and aircraft models from his youth, his family moved to the United States in May, 1941, in response to the gathering war clouds with the Japanese Empire that would burst with such sudden ferocity with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor later that year on December 7.
Obtaining a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from UCLA in 1950, Rich went to work for Lockheed’s Burbank facility as a specialist in thermodynamics, aerodynamics, propulsion, and design. By 1955, he had so distinguished himself he was moved to Lockheed’s Advanced Development Projects, the “skunk works,” then under the capable and brilliant direction of Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, the man he would eventually replace. There, Rich worked on the development of Top Secret advanced aircraft, the high altitude U-2 and even more exotic SR-71 Blackbird among them. When Johnson retired in 1975, Ben Rich succeeded him as the director of Lockheed’s “skunk works,” a position he held until his retirement on Dec. 31, 1990. Ben Rich died on Jan. 5, 1995, but between the time of his retirement and his death, he made a number of astonishing public and private statements, the subject of our study here.
B. A Catalog of Ben Rich’s Astonishing Statements
For simplicity’s sake, we will catalog Rich’s statements, italicizing the statement itself, and then providing the context in which each was made.
And last, but not least, there was one final comment, and for our purposes as we shall see, it is the most significant one:
9. “There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars, and it won’t take a lifetime to do it.” This statement immediately followed number 8 above, and was made at the 1993 UCLA presentation.
In addition to these comments by Ben Rich, it is also worth noting that others in the black projects industry made similar statements. Michael Schratt states in his article that an unnamed Lockheed retired engineer was quoted in the February 1988 issue of Gung-Ho magazine, in an arictle titled “Stealth and Beyond,” as saying “Let’s just put it this way... we have things flying in the Nevada desert that would make George Lucas drool.”
Schratt goes on to state:
The same Gung-Ho article continues with an earth-shaking comment made by an Air Force officer who was involved in the development of the SR-71 (blackbird): “We are testing vehicles that defy description. To compare them conceptually to the SR-71 would be like comparing Leonardo da Vinci’s parachute design to the space shuttle.” One retired Colonel chimed in with the following statement which also appeared in the same article: “We have things that are so far beyond the comprehension of the average aviation authority as to be really alien to our way of thinking.”
All of these quotations lead Schratt to ask a very logical question: are they “veiled confirmation of the so-called ‘secret space program’”?
C. Interpretive Possibilities
Before we proceed to answer that most important question - indeed, the central question posed by Rich’s remarks - we must examine the interpretive possibilities suggested by this catalog of remarks. Looking carefully at Rich’s statements, there are three broad classes into which they fall:
As noted, Rich made his statement in the specific context of knowing “how to travel to the stars” and this means that the “error in the equations” cannot be in the form of an error in any of the conventional equations of aerodynamics, fluid flow and so on.
In short, Rich's statements imply that one has to reverse-engineer an entire hidden history of physics and electrodynamics, for they clearly imply that there is such a history.
This raises the whole point of secrecy and just how long advanced secrets may be closely held and hidden from public view. Within UFOlogy the argument is often made that secret human technology could not be that advanced from that in the public view, nor would it have remained classified for so long. But the clear implication of Rich's statements is quite the opposite, for he not only clearly implies the existence of such technology but that it is so deeply secret that it has remained so for decades; he is also implying a hidden physics. The question is, when was “the error in the equations” known and why were the scientists looking for it?
As I have pointed out in many of my published books, the original form of James Clerk Maxwell's equations unifying electricity and magnetism were originally written in a geometric language known as quaternions. But additionally, when one turns to the literature of those physicists who are increasingly dissatisfied with the standard models, one finds other criticisms, even of their standard formulation in the partial derivative form learned by most students of physics, and as they were revised by Oliver Heaviside.
One of the most trenchant observations of such problems was noted by the physicist Thomas E. Phipps, Jr., in an excellent book entitled Old Physics for New, a highly mathematical work. There he notes two crucial things, namely, that Maxwell's own formulation of his theory does not adequately take into consideration sink motions, but only source motions, but more importantly, notes that induction is mathematically misrepresented by one form of equation (partial derivative form) when another form alone adequately accounts for the changing shape of circuit parameters that is being penetrated by a magnetic flux. While all this may seem abstruse and incomprehensible, it basically boils down to the fact that in the quest for mathematical formalisms that are “beautiful,” physicists essentially abandoned observation for the pursuit of theoretical beauty.
In the context of Rich's statements then, and their implication that there was an error in the equations, it is likely that the Lockheed engineers discovered this very simple mathematical change, one that, in effect, did away with the all important observer of the effect, in this case, the effect being the electromagnetic field itself. In this case, the circuit parameters, only fully describable by the change in notation from partial to full derivative form, function as the physical observer of the field effect; change the parameters of the circuit, and one changes what is observed. And that, of course, means that circuit parameters directly affect the local engineering or observation of space-time, exactly was was stated by the electrical engineer Gabriel Kron. Physics, in other words, went very early astray by means of this change.
So from the standpoint of Rich's statements, two conceptual and philosophical errors were introduced because of this change of mathematical languages: (1) the change from quaternion geometry to linear algebra lost the idea of a non-translational stress in the physical medium, a stress that might conceivably be manipulated for an “antigravity” effect, and (2) the change from partial to full derivative form lost the observer – the circuit parameters – and the direct effect these had on the field to be observed.
In other words, even on this short and necessarily cursory examination, one need go no further than the parameterizations of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism to discover two major changes in the mathematical formalisms of the theory that strongly support Rich's contention that “there was an error in the equations,” an error making possible a technology to take us to the stars.
Those changes in the formalisms of the theory would, of course, lead to further theoretical developments, including, of course, Einstein's Special and General Relativity theories, and the subsequent attempts in the 1920s to formulate unified field theories between electromagnetism and gravity. But if the first foundations of electromagnetic theory were themselves vitiated by two seemingly minor changes in the mathematical formalism, then this would mean that many of the assumptions and parameters of the theoretical edifice built upon them also would have to be revisited and rethought from the ground up. In future papers we will explore this topic of a hidden, off-the-books physics, and the history of the public consumption physics, further, but for the moment, it need only be noted that, given this analysis, it must be concluded that Rich was not simply stating something untrue, nor stating a piece of disinformation to mislead the public, other scientists, or engineers. His statements must be given great weight because the actual history itself says that such errors were made. The history is known and commented on by physicists willing to break with accepted dogmas and examine the history of the theoretical edifice (often at great cost to their own careers).
This fact, plus the fact of the other statements Rich made, leads me to conclude that Lockheed's engineers not only discovered these and similar errors, but that they went on to work out a new, hidden, off-the-books theoretical structure of physics, and to begin the engineering of actual technologies based upon it. We are, in other words, looking at the possibility of an actual, practical, field propulsion technology, utilizing electromagnetism in a practical way to achieve antigravity effects, which we will examine in the next installment of this series of papers.
Joseph P Farrell, 2011
Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. Old Physics for New (C. Roy Keys, Inc., 2006), p. 16.
Ibid., p. 3.
For a fuller discussion of this point relating to the change from partial to full derivatives, see pp. 10-11.