Documents / Official release
This Defense Intelligence Agency reference document is dated 30 March 2010. The Defense Warning Office prepared it under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program. It compares lone maverick inventors with corporate inventors who work in think tanks and other large organizations, focusing on unconventional energy and propulsion, including antigravity. It sorts inventors into five types. It concludes that formally trained mavericks (Types 3 and 4) are the most likely source of the next innovations. Untrained inventors are expected to contribute nothing substantial.
From the source: Release of 2026-09-18 Incident: 3/30/10, Las Vegas, Nevada. Released with redactions. This document is a Defense Intelligence Reference Document (DIRD), a technical reference format used by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to capture baseline knowledge on a specific topic for later analytic use. DIRDs are best understood as reference and synthesis products rather than as original research. It is one of 38 DIRDs produced under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) between 2009 and 2011. Because AAWSAP’s scope permitted a broad range of supporting topics, not every DIRD in the series directly concerns aerospace systems or future threat assessment. The following summary reflects the DIRD’s scope and framing at the time of writing and should not be read as implying current validation of the concepts discussed. This DIRD compares lone “maverick” inventors with researchers working inside larger organizations in order to ask where major future breakthroughs are most likely to come from, especially in unconventional energy and propulsion. It concludes that the strongest candidates are technically trained, relatively independent, and flexible researchers working with some freedom from institutional constraint. Because that preferred profile closely resembles the kind of researcher who appears to have authored or shaped much of the broader AAWSAP DIRD effort, the document reflects a notable methodological circularity, validating the program’s operational model rather than neutrally assessing the innovation ecosystem.
UNCLASSIFIED/ }FOR 8FFI@IAL ~91! 8HLY Where does the inventor find funding for such a development? The typical inventor (Reference 13) will canvas a wider network of friends, his church, a local venture capitalist or private investor who is not very savvy, or a fund specifically establlished to invest in exotic energy startups (Reference 14, 15). After convincing them of the incredible return on their investment in the technology by "demonstrating" it (without proper protocols, test equipment, and so forth), manpower, space, and new equipment are purchased. Usually the last thing on the inventor's mind at this stage is wasting investors' money on an independent laboratory test such as might be found at a local university's engineering or physics department or certified testing laboratory to determine whether there is any validity to the technology. Around this time, the major investors start to sense there might be something amiss in their original assessment of the validity of the technology. This might arise from any number of factors, including continual requests for more funding, continual delays in demonstrating the new high-power unit, more-informed friends asking probing technical questions, and so forth. Investors start to withdraw, accepting the fact of their bad investment, and the inventor eventually recedes into oblivion or skips town to start up again under a different guise somewhere else. This is typical behavior for the con artist (Reference 16, 17, 18), whose exploits will not be further analyzed herein. However, some enterprising individuals parlay their experience into related conventional businesses (Reference 19), and some investors hang on long past the time a reasonable person would quit (Reference 20). Patent protection generally is not sought by the Type 1 inventor. And if a patent is sought, either it is rejected outright by the patent office or a watered-down version is obtained that is usually worthless from either the physics or technical point of view or as part of the intellectual property to eventually be sold to an investor interested in commercializing the device. What can be learned from the Type 1 inventor? Given their lack of formal education in the relevant disciplines, there is a negligible chance that Type 1 inventors will contribute anything of significance to major innovations in the energy and propulsion areas. Their undisciplined approach, coupled with th,eir lack of funds and interest in science by media, virtually guarantees failure. The Type 2 Inventor The major-and sometimes only-difference between Type 2 and Type 1 inventors is that Type 2 inventors tend to be even more confident in their inventions because they have been able to purchase fancy and costly measuring equipment and have high quality machining done. However, because of their general lack of education in the relevant areas of instrumentation, they can misuse the instruments or misinterpret the resulting data just as bad ly as Type 1 inventors (Reference 21). However, Type 2 inventors have the advantage of being able to purchase external expertise in these areas (Reference 22). The degree to which they rely on and believe the external expertise-for example, a university laboratory-is dependent on several factors, most notably the personality of the inventor himself. The more self-assured personality relies less on outside expertise. Type 2 inventors generally have more to lose in terms of money, as they typically start out big and want to go bigger faster. They tend to investigate less speculative areas of UNCLASSIFIED/ ,'FOR OFFI&ilAL Wili QNL¥ 7
Not linked to a story yet.
Official release, from the pursue collection. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 19 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.