Macgyver, you do realize that you're making M_a_x's point?

Obviously you're not talking about relativistic speeds - the speed of the outer surface of a 1" ball bearing at 27,000 RPM is only about 80 MPH.

If spinning a body somehow increases it's gravitation without increasing it's mass or vice versa, the same ought to apply to any moving body. Bullets ought to positively dive for the ground!

If I understand it correctly, and I don't begin to claim to, it is changing the inertia of the object. How that works with things traveling horizontally or vertically is purely conjecture. You have made an assumption about what is happening with the rotating object without really knowing, and then you are making a connection with something that is very difficult to accurately measure (all bullets have charges that exert different pressures)

All I am saying is that this is an area that well respected gyroscopic researchers have been studying for years and it shows a flaw in the laws of physics that we revere. There are too many thought experiments in the scientific community (especially in the slightly educated community) and not enough experimentation. You may well ask why don't I do the experiment myself and prove that it is as I say it is? Perhaps one day I will, but at the moment, firstly I have better things to do and I find the research credible and historically sound. Secondly I don't have the equipment.

If you would like to say that it isn't so and that the researchers are lying and your physics professors are without error in this area. Then, do the test yourself and you will be satisfied either way, and science will be done. As I said earlier, don't do a thought experiment based on known theories and then say that it can't work... If someone wants to debunk something, then do the experiment and then prove it wrong scientifically.

I agree with MAX that there are too many folks who have just enough education to be sucked in by cranks, however there are just as many people with just enough education who consider themselves educated when all they are doing is spouting off the theoretical principles that they have been taught instead of reasoning and experimenting and testing themselves.

In the second Gulf war the US were using "top secret" aircraft that would hover for hours in one spot over the battle field. These aircraft apparently were the result of developing this principle of rotational inertia. I know guys who were on the ground over there and they were telling me that they had seen nothing like them. I seem to remember that they were the triangular shaped aircraft that were being tested in the US at night for several years before that time.

Macgyver and I may not disagree as much as it may seem. Science is not about how cranky a theory is or even if the theory is right.
The scientific approach to a theory is to set up and conduct a test that can falsify the theory. To assure it can reproduced, setup and results must be documented. The results must not be twisted to support the theory. It is legitimate to refer to tests that have already be done.
There is a reason for the free energy community to dislike engineers. Many of the devices use well known effects and do not work because of equally well known effects. Some of those effects were experienced through experiments during the studies. The engineers also learned to ask the right questions. E. g. if a certain power output is claimed, evidence beyond the dark glow of a light bulb may be asked for instead of just the nominal rating of the bulb emitting bright white light.
Due to the gyroscopic effect accelerated spinning bodies experience forces that are not present for non-spinning bodies. Spinning ball bearings also have interaction with fluids beyond air resistance. It is a complex situation. So a falling ball bearing may behave in a way you would not expect. Whether the behavior supports the theory of influence on the gravitation can only be decided with tests.