> "To say it's not there and I can't turn up a link is dismissing the works of innovators like Thompson Brown who came up with an idea and spent the next 30 years working on it in secret with the US Air Force."

Yes, I will dismiss the work of Thompson Brown based on the Wikipedia criticism section which has multiple convincing reasons to dismiss it and neither the Wikipedia page, nor you, have given any convincing reasons to think otherwise. Is that unreasonable of me?

> "It's also dark matter because UFO's are real."

I don't believe they are real[ly alien spacecraft]. There are good reasons for thinking they aren't, such as that they also move in ways that are exactly like bokeh effects, gimballed cameras with image stabilisation, and weather balloons:

https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_p...

https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/ngwc3h/the_newest_p...

that there are no other signs of alien life from astronomy or radio telescopy or etc. And no good reasons to think they are, except it would be exciting.

> "These supposed "objects" move in ways that are termed the defy the natural laws of known physics."

If true, that does not give license to go from "it's moving unusually" to "I can invent whatever sci-fi mechanism I think sounds coolest to explain it". Why not think they work by Alcubierre Warp Drive, or McKenna-ian psychic interdimensional travel or teleportation or anything else? Still priviliging the hypothesis of "electromagnetic gravity manipulation" with no reason why that should have any privilege as the way they work, or why that should be a thing which exists, despite not fitting in with what we seem to think gravity is.

> "It's stated in numerous patent documents that it is theorized to use gravitational manipulation technologies and elctrogravitic forces."

What authority do you think this adds? Patents have been granted for perpetual motion machines. Being in a patent doesn't mean "the patent officer is a qualified physicist who agrees that the speculated mechanism of operation of UFOs is possible and likely". The patent you linked has glaring problems - the patent says it works by air pressure, and could work in space. Clearly something which works on air pressure cannot work in space, why do you gloss over that inconsistency? The patent says the drive would be inertialess and passengers would feel no acceleration, with no reason given for why that should be the case, despite passengers in vehicles moved by air pressure feeling acceleration. Why do you have no problem with that inconsistency? The author says there would be huge power generation by a giant pyramid, yet the Burj Kahlifa which is not-box-shaped[1] and is much taller so should have a much bigger voltage potential difference from base to peak, is not a power supply from atmospheric electricity - and nor is any other skyscraper. Why doesn't that bother you?

> "We don't have to stick with what we know."

Indeed, and we don't have to stick with putting food and water in our mouths, we can put mud, rocks, lava, fingernail clippings, Ewoks, clouds, the Orion Nebula, dreams - the possibilities are endless!

The chain from "some people report seeing flying objects" to "those reports must be of real vehicles in the sky" to "the vehicles are alien craft" to "it's definitely impossible to build a machine which moves like this without new physics" to "the new physics involved is probably electromagnetic gravity manipulation" to "it is because if you think it isn't you hate progress - everyone says it is" is a long chain with many weak links.

[1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aj40LPiKjUI/UmjktpZMuLI/AAAAAAAAA7...