The evidence cited as patents is kind of weak.

cited:

1) US20030209637A1

2) US20060038081A1

3) US6974110B2

4) US5269482A

5) US9494949B2 and

6) US20210309394A1 as "patents" supporting the claim the tech was real.

1, 2 and 6 are patent applications (not patents), meaning they could be bullshit, no one authenticated that the info is true.

1 and 2 were abandoned applications. 1 was abandoned after the PTO rejected it for failing to recite anything supported by evidence or recite something that would enable someone to recreate it.

2 was abandoned without any published examination.

3, 4 and 5 are expired patents, meaning if the tech was real, its now disclosed and public domain, so where are the gravity control engines? they're foss now afterall... (i haven't read/evaluated the patents, just saying, they're expired so where they at?) (maybe there's evergreen patents or something. [evergreening is the practice of perpetually getting patents on essentially the same idea, but by incrementally improving it])

6 is a pending app but it just got a notice of allowability. they convinced someone at the patent office their tech was new/useful/real. This is the strongest piece of evidence if anyone wants to dive into it.

In reality, getting a patent means you convicned a gov emolyee that you made something new. Its not super strong evidence