Of course you neglected to name these "experts" and to pay attention to what was CLEARLY stated:
"While it was done by an expert that part is…irrelevance because he has also provided the protocols used, meaning that anyone can duplicate the testing in accordance with something not mentioned here: the scientific method."
"My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier's accounts of his encounters with the Plejarens...If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he's being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I've only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I'll tell you, the majority of them think it's credible and agree at least with part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Plejarens."
(Note that the topic of zero-point field energy (http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/Froning-quantumvacuum.pdf
), etc., is indeed one of award-winning (http://www.integrityresearchinstitute.org/COFE4Review.htm
) physicist and aeronautical and aerospace engineer David Froning's specialized areas of interest and expertise.) In fact, people like Michael Malin (http://theyfly.com/Scientific_Experts.html
), NASA aerospace engineer (http://prweb.com/releases/2014/05/prweb11867883.htm
), Matthew Wieczkiewicz, and Kenneth Smith, the Director of Operations at Orbital Launch System Group (Ret) endorse Meier's singular authenticity.
You're being "pretty sure" about othr cases is equivalent to my saying I'm pretty sure you're a thief and embezzler. Where's the evidence?
Bottom line, it's probably wise of you to remain anonymous since such embarrassingly shoddy "research" is the reason why your posting on internet forums is the extent of your "expertise". This is what I expect from skeptics and debunkers of course. And it makes one wonder why, since even this person claims to want to know the truth, etc., there's such ignorant, hateful, resentment filled idiocy in the face of what is really the best evidence.
No further statements, reeking of incompetence, unspecified "experts", lack of research, logic and basic thinking skills will be repsonded to further. As usual, this turns into a classic situation of "pearls before…"