I'll respectfully disagree a bit here. His statement, part of which you quoted, is this:

External Quote:

I'm not saying it's weasel wording, but "performance characteristics that we couldn't duplicate today" is a wide open statement and typical in this field.It suggests "new physics" but could just be referring to upgraded or modified existing technology.

For example, prior to the late '80s, there were conventional fixed wing aircraft or there were rotor wing helicopter aircraft. Through out the '80 & '90s Bell and Boeing developed the V22, a new class of tilt rotor aircraft. It lands and takes off like a helicopter and flies like fixed wing plane. In the mid '80s, this would have been "performance characteristics" that could not have "been duplicated" prior to the V22's development.

As for his claim about "disruptive technology, or emerging technology," again, this doesn't have to mean new physics and again is a typical in these discussions. Disruptive technology is usually a marketing term, meaning this is the next Apple, invest now. Often the term "breakthrough technology" gets thrown around in UFO circles to mean something completely new and different. Technology doesn't work that way, it builds in layers upon previous technologies. For every new technology, there is a host of antecedents that proceeded it.

An 5th gen fighter like the F35 traces back, step by step to the Wright Brothers. We didn't suddenly go from balloons to 747s, there were Ford TriMotors and DC3s and 707s and all the rest. Same with one's cell phone. First there was the telegraph, then voice over wire, then voice over radio, then portable phones, then advancements in micro-processors were combined with portable phones to create smart phones and so on.

As for decades long programs that re-make physics or change our understanding of gravity, I think that's backwards. As a professor once told me, "technology is the application of man's knowledge". The knowledge comes first, then the technology based on it. A working aircraft relied on the understanding of the Bernoulli effect, dating back to the 18th century.

While there are certainly many smart physicists and others working on classified programs, there are far more working in unclassified academia and industry. The notion is that a few guys in secret have upended physics or gravity just to make some aircraft, inferring they have discovered something radically new and different from what they learned in school. At the same time, the huge number of publicly working scientists, likely including some of the ones that taught the secret guys, have managed to NOT make the same discoveries. This makes no sense.

One doesn't upend physics with an aircraft. One upends physics, then designs an aircraft to take advantage of that new paradigm. Knowledge is first, then technology follows. If that's the case, and I argue it is, then where is all this new physics? Where is the new understanding of gravity? If a few physicists working in secret can figure it out, surely some physicists at some collage somewhere would have as well. There is just too much research going on. IF there ever is an upending of physics or gravity, it'll play out in journals for years before being settled on.

Honestly, this would apply to alien technology as well. The idea that some guy can reverse engineer a UFO that uses unknown physics is untenable. The technology flows from knowledge, so someone would have to learn the new physics first. And this all assumes the idea that physics is different in other parts of the universe, which all of our current understands and experiments show it's not.