I landed on a YouTube interview with David Alzofon while researching for my DIY Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) project. In the interview, David Alzofon discussed his father’s work on “gravity control” through Dynamic Nuclear Orientation, which could allegedly be achieved by applying pulsed EPR on a high-purity aluminum sample. I would usually not bite onto antigravity claims, but it intrigued me because of Dr. Fredrick Alzofon’s was a well-recognized physicist, and mainly by the claim that he had experimentally demonstrated his theory using a standard laboratory EPR system.The interview was very interesting, so I purchased David Alzofon’s book “Gravity Control with Present Technology” and read it carefully. Dr. Alzofon’s gravity theory is very elegant. However, I’ve seen many beautiful, but wrong explanations of gravity before, so I looked forward to the claimed experimental proof. His claim of positive results from an experiment conducted in May of 1994 using a Chemistry Department’s EPR system looked promising until I saw the results of Experiment 3, Test 4, labeled “Control” [Page 157] which shows that the exact same “weight loss” results were obtained with the EPR electromagnet magnet off!Based on Dr. Alzofon’s model, weight loss should NOT have occurred with the magnetic field OFF, since dynamic nuclear orientation couldn’t happen if the EPR resonance condition was not satisfied during the microwave ON periods!To this effect, in the third paragraph of page 133 Alzofon writes: “Could the weight alteration be caused by anything other than the configuration of the fields? ... Microwaves alone would have no effect on weight, either.”The book provides a “plausible explanation” for this unexpected result, hypothesizing that the electromagnet remained magnetized after the current was switched off. However, the explanation doesn’t make any sense to me, since any residual remaining field would be significantly lower than the field strength necessary to satisfy the conditions for EPR at 9.5 GHz.Given that experiment AF2004 is labeled as “Control,” I believe that the proper way to use it would be to subtract AF2004 from AF2003. Doing so, I fail to see any difference between the two outside the noise limit of the system, so I have to conclude that there is absolutely no variation that could be legitimately attributed to a reduction in weight of the test sample.In conclusion, I believe that the graph of AF2004 (Control, with magnetic field turned OFF) completely invalidates the claim that Dr. Alzofon’s model has been "experimentally proven.” This doesn't mean that Dr. Alzofon's theory is wrong. However, in my view, the experimental data provided in the book show absolutely no effect of satisfying the EPR condition on the gravitational pull experienced by the sample. I still believe that Dr. Alzofon's theory is elegant, and hence believe that the jury is still out on whether it could be experimentally verified by using a better, more sensitive experimental system that is immune to artifacts caused by the operation of the RF field.