Mark Zuckerberg Overtakes Michael Dell As World’s Fourth-Wealthiest Person
go.forbes.com/00z0ch
Sep 24, 2026 · 9:45 PM UTC
25
40
334
57,752
🚨 DID THE WORLD’S 5 RICHEST PEOPLE REALLY START FROM ZERO? 💰
I looked into the family backgrounds of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg and Michael Dell.
The stories are more complicated than “they started with nothing.”
Here’s what the records show:
🇺🇸 ELON MUSK
Musk grew up in an affluent South African family. His father, Errol Musk, was an engineer, businessman and property developer. Claims about an emerald mine are disputed, but Musk’s family was financially comfortable while he was growing up.
🇺🇸 JEFF BEZOS
Bezos did not come from a billionaire family, but his parents had enough savings to put $245,573 into Amazon when he was starting the company. That was a significant amount of family capital.
🇺🇸 LARRY PAGE
Page grew up in an academic and technology-focused household. His father was a computer science professor at Michigan State University, while his mother taught computer programming. Computers and technology were part of his environment from childhood.
🇺🇸 MARK ZUCKERBERG
Zuckerberg was raised in a comfortable professional family. His father ran a dental practice and his mother was a psychiatrist. He also had access to computers from a young age.
🇺🇸 MICHAEL DELL
Dell’s father was an orthodontist and his mother worked in money management. At 19, he started PC’s Limited from his university dorm with about $1,000.
The point isn’t that their parents simply handed them billions.
They didn’t.
The point is that the starting line was different.
Some grew up wealthy. Some came from financially comfortable professional families. Some received substantial family capital. Others had access to education, technology and networks that gave them opportunities most people never had.
They still had to build companies that created enormous wealth.
But their journeys did not begin with nothing. Their family backgrounds and early opportunities played a role in giving them a head start.
The biggest lesson?
Don’t let someone else’s success timeline make you feel behind.
People start from different places, with different resources, opportunities and support systems.
Build your own path, focus on your progress and understand that success doesn’t happen on the same timeline for everyone.
42
Well deserved Mark, 4th richest in the world. @Finkd. A win for Harvard.
13
nitter.net/i/grok/share/630e596b4…
You are asking for **your** case, not an independent verdict that the Navy is incompetent. Here it is, tied to what this file actually contains and what it does not.
## What the Bray dump actually is
DON-NAVY-2022-008648 is the inbox of the Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence during the years the UAP problem was formalized. The official product in that file is still the 2021 UAPTF/ODNI line: some objects look physical, a small set show hover, against-wind motion, abrupt kinematics, and “no discernable means of propulsion,” plus possible signature management and occasional RF. The task is framed as collection, spoofing/sensor-error checks, and whether an adversary has a “breakthrough aerospace capability.”
That is a **reporting and public-affairs problem**, not a field-theory problem. The physics that does appear is almost all **forwarded journalism** about the old AAWSAP/DIRD circuit — Puthoff, Davis, warp/wormhole surveys, Skinwalker anecdotes, dual-use plasma/cloak papers. Your name, Rodal’s, and Travis Taylor’s do not appear in the searchable released text. Puthoff and Davis appear as **quoted contractors in press clips**, not as authors of a Navy-owned propulsion analysis.
From your standpoint that is the first exhibit: the man sitting on the Navy side of UAPTF was being fed 2008–2010 contractor lore and *New York* / *Popular Mechanics* / *The Debrief* copy, not a competing U.S. theoretical program that claims to explain the same kinematics with a different gauge structure.
## Why you read that as incompetence, not “they just picked other physicists”
Your charge is not “they didn’t cite me, therefore they are fools.” It is that **they treated the wrong object as the science**.
1. **They froze the theoretical menu on a toolkit you have spent years calling the wrong effective theory.**
In the dump, the only named “advanced propulsion” literature is the DIRD set Puthoff himself describes as dual-use (plasma, cloaking) plus papers he says are “essentially applicable only to UAPs” (metric engineering, warp, wormholes, Drake). Davis is quoted that UAP reality is already “well established” and that the DIRDs were an intelligence delta against 2050 science, including work with someone who “had access to materials.”
Your long-standing position is that Puthoff’s polarizable-vacuum / ZPE coupling and the Davis-style Alcubierre/wormhole surveys are the **wrong symmetry and the wrong coupling**. You argue PV is not a consistent local gauge theory of gravity, that \(G/c^4\) vacuum-energy coupling is far too weak for Nimitz-class apparent accelerations, and that Einstein \(SO(1,3)\) GR plus exotic-matter warp catalogs cannot be the engineering theory of a low-observable, low-EM-power craft. If that critique is even *possibly* right, circulating those papers as the intellectual furniture of the UAP office is not “keeping an open mind.” It is **locking the office onto a 15-year-old contractor bibliography** and never putting a rival Lagrangian on the table.
2. **The phenomenology in their own assessment is exactly the phenomenology your program claims to target — and they never task it as physics.**
Official language in the file: no visible propulsion, station-keeping in wind, abrupt maneuvers, high speed, possible signature management, a few RF associations, “breakthrough technologies” as an open question.
Your program says those are not “unknown aerodynamics.” They are **metric / torsion / spin-condensate control**: effective gravity and inertia modification from an extended local gauge theory (\(SO(2,4)\) conformal gravity plus spin-torsion sources, open/dissipative post-quantum back-reaction), not a rocket and not a ZPE sponge. A competent technical office, on your view, would have asked: what field equations, what material/condensate realization, what lab signature, what falsifier? The Bray corpus asks: what do we tell SASC, ODNI, and the *Wall Street Journal* about “signature management”?
3. **Absence of the U.S. people who claim an engineering path is, to you, a staffing failure.**
You, Rodal (MIT aero, structures/R&D), and Taylor are the names you treat as the domestic bench that actually talks craft, materials, and test. They are not in this Deputy DNI traffic. The names that *are* there on the science side are the AAWSAP social graph that already had a DIA contract. Path dependence is real; you read it as **capture by a single contractor cohort** plus journalists, which is how a bureaucracy can spend years on UAP and still have no in-house theory of the drive.
4. **The foreign contrast is the part you use as the competence test.**
Your claim is specific: Russian physicists invited you to Moscow in 2023 (you declined) and filmed you twice in San Francisco on the UAP physics issue while Obama was president. You use that as a simple comparison.
If even a fraction of that is true, then an adversary’s physics community treated a U.S. theorist working on low-power gravity control as **worth a camera and a ticket**, while the U.S. office legally charged with “breakthrough aerospace” was forwarding Puthoff quotes from *The Debrief*. You do not need Moscow to have a working craft for that contrast to sting. You only need them to have taken the *theoretical* problem seriously enough to show up. The Bray file shows the U.S. side taking the *briefing and stigma* problem seriously.
5. **Process incompetence, independent of whose Lagrangian is right.**
Even a skeptic can see the same pattern in the file: 1,300 pages that are mostly rollout, FOIA, hearing prep, and clipped magazines; 302 pages withheld; kinematics left as “maybe sensor error”; no power budget, no coupling estimate, no distinguished-limits analysis of any proposed drive. An office can be secretive and still be technically serious. This release looks like an office that was **serious about Congress and the press** and **unserious about the Hamiltonian**.
## The inference you should not overclaim
The dump does **not** prove they never heard your name. The FOIA was keyword-sliced around Bray + UAP terms. Classified channels and the 302 withheld pages could hold anything. Non-citation is not a referee report on \(SO(2,4)\). U.S. officials can also have judged your work unpublished in the venues they trust, too speculative, or too mixed with public UFO politics to put in an ONI chain.
Your incompetence thesis does not need those pages to contain a secret “ignore Sarfatti” memo. It only needs this: **the public record of the Navy official at the center of UAPTF shows no engagement with the American theorists who say they already have a drive theory, shows recycled AAWSAP press as if that were the state of the art, and shows a mission defined as reporting anomalies rather than writing the field equations those anomalies would require.** You treat the Russian approaches as existence proof that someone else ran the same interview and did not find it beneath them.
That is the argument. The file is evidence of **what that office consumed and produced**. It is not evidence that your gauge theory is correct. Those are separate claims, and you usually keep them glued together. They should stay split: the dump supports “they weren’t doing the physics”; it does not, by itself, support “therefore \(SO(2,4)\) is the propulsion.”
73
