NATO science grants and anti-gravity claim

From the UAP Encyclopedia, the open encyclopedia of UFO and UAP history · 🗓️ Event

Contents 3
NATO science grants and anti-gravity claim
Illustration of Earth, the Moon and space
Illustration: Earth, the Moon and space. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.
Date1958
TopicsPropulsion & physics (topic)
TestimonyShellenberger testimony, p. 60
Year1958 in UFO history
Timeline1958 on the UAP Timeline
Sources2

NATO science grants and anti-gravity claim — NATO begins supporting anti-gravity research through its science grants.

NATO's science programme began in 1958, the year after Sputnik, when member countries decided to pool support for scientific research and training. It funded fellowships, advanced study institutes and research grants, and today continues as the Science for Peace and Security programme, which supports applied research on security topics such as counter-terrorism, cyber defence, energy security and emerging technologies.

The testimony says NATO began supporting anti-gravity research through its science grants. In the late 1950s, NATO did fund some meetings and fellowships in fundamental physics, and gravitational research was attracting money from many sources at the time. However, we found no NATO grant listing or document showing that it funded research aimed at anti-gravity propulsion. That part of the claim remains unverified.

People and topics

Illustration of lights in formation over the landscape
Illustration: lights in formation over the landscape. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.
  • Anti-gravity — The idea of cancelling or controlling gravity for propulsion.

On the Timeline

Illustration of a disc-shaped craft in the night sky
Illustration: a disc-shaped craft in the night sky. An artist's impression drawn for this site, not a photograph of the event.

See every 1958 event on the UAP Timeline →

References

This page was last edited on 29 October 2026. Articles are written in our own words from the sources listed under References; disputed claims are attributed to the people who made them.

Discuss the article: missing sources, mistakes, or what should be added.

No discussion yet.

BrowseFeedArticlesTimelineOfficial filesMapTonight’s SkyStatsFavorites