UFOs & the Cold War: Project Palladium

originally posted by: Springer
a reply to: Bedlam

so it was not writing on the wall...

"Mene, mene, tekel, Snap-on"

originally posted by: Agnost
... so there is a craft, triangular, black, with a revolutionary propulsion system...

It depends on the generation. But triangular-ish.

...there are electromagnetic waves (radar, laser, etc.) that can produce controlled moving targets on radar screens.

THAT is a staple of modern military ECM and has been since...well, Palladium, I suppose.

3) given the craft technology exists, why keep on spending millions and millions (both by the government as by civil enterprises) in 'classical' aerospace and airplane technology (reaction motors, new planes, rockets,..)? This technology might be cheaper and less polluting?

Niven's Kzinti Lesson comes to mind,if not literally, then certainly metaphorically: "Any reaction motor is a weapon of efficiency proportional to its efficiency as a rocket". Extrapolate it to O'Bedlam's Rule: "Any power source, or power storage device is a weapon with efficiency proportional to the power density"

Likewise, with this advanced weaponry, current conflicts (Middle East, e.g.) could probably be solved in no time, no?

It did, once. Solved a budding problem for several years. Didn't go far enough or went too far, depending on who you talk to.

a reply to: SpaceOverlord

Well it has been discussed for 5000 years, but yes
you are correct; both 'bio plasma' and 'dark plasma'
are hypothetical. But neither are all that 'out there'.

The reason I'm not shy about discussing 'bioplasma'
is that i have personal experience with 'it' whatever
'it' is. Lengthy experience.

Unless I'm speaking about commonly accepted
physics & science, at least half of what I discuss
is highly theoretical and/or subjective.

That's just the nature of trying to research such
fringe topics.

Kev

a reply to: Agnost

Well the flip side of this, is that whether the technology
which is discussed here is fully real or not, that's not
even the part which matters.

(and as you say quite cogently, for the military to fly
experimental planes close in and low over high
pop centers, breaking all known civilian and military
aviation laws is 'telling' to say the least)

Those 'hypothetical plasma lifeforms' have a huge
amount of imitation and envy built into them, and
in fact I suspect that some think some of these
plasma coated black ops planes are 'mommy'
and 'daddy'.

Yes the tech is interesting. But it's not the story
at all; it's the magician's wand.

This reply is a test which I will refer to later.

Kev

a reply to: Bedlam

From what I can tell the latest one is a perfect triangle from the bottom. The top looked like it had a little hump toward the center of mass. Tapered on the ends.

originally posted by: CardDown
I was just rereading the DC invasion as covered in "UFOs and Government". The comment was made that the UFOs behaved as if it was display, as if the US was the target of a flying psyop.

I'm not familiar with the Soviet capabilities of the era. Could the USSR have been spoofing radar ghosts?

the 1952 DC sighting was NOT ONLY on radar, but visually, by thousands of people....you can't fake that with a "radar screen image".....this puts at least this part of the OP's narrative into dispute...also, the "Phoenix Lights" sighting was NOT ONLY over Phoenix, but, visually sighted by people further south of Phoenix over a span of time....

a reply to: BASSPLYR

The one I saw had no tapering or hump on top.
It looked like a giant gunmetal giant flying
PERFECTLY uniform isocoles triangle
cheese wedge so to speak. (The drawing
on my wall makes this clear).

But what this things real/true shape is,
is anybodys guess.

Also the $64,000 dollar question is this:

Are there real black ops planes hell bent
on convincing us UFOs are low altitude
barnstorming major population centers,
while breaking every law in the book;

or

are plasma lifeforms attracted to black
ops planes enveloped by plasma; and
then being their little leprechaun selves
playing games with peoples minds..
and sometimes possibly even
manifesting their own fake UFOs?

So you see, I could barely give a hoot
about the planes themselves...they are
the wand.

The REAL and ONLY valid questions are:
(IMHO):

Do we have a government psyop problem?
Do we have a pixie (plasma entity) problem?
Or both, and which is more 'True'.

Kev

a reply to: Bedlam

Well, that's rich: "Tom O'Bedlam" himself.

I'm remembering now that you visited my James Tilly Matthews/Airloom thread. The irony is killing me.

Wow, so the lunatics have really taken over the asylum. You get the joke there, right? it's as if James was more than correct: The Airloom Gang isn't hiding in London Wall anymore, they are staffing Bedlam.

So, then, you get the joke with all of this and Tausk's Influencing Machine and all that? And also how it's not a joke. And likely parts of the joke that I am totally missing.

That's refreshing.

I know more than Apollo,
For oft, when he lies sleeping

I see the stars at bloody wars
In the wounded welkin weeping;

The moon embrace her shepherd,
And the Queen of Love her warrior,

While the first doth horn the star of morn,
And the next the heavenly Farrier.

Have a good morning, bedlam.

a reply to: Bybyots

Well this is a fascinating angle, that has been
brought up a few times on ATS.

I will have to include a chapter on schizoaffective
disorders as well, not just high functioning
autism.

Of course you know what they say about
paranoia; "just because you are paranoid
doesn't mean people aren't out to get you"

;-)

Kev

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Bedlam

Well, that's rich: "Tom O'Bedlam" himself.

And Tom O'Bedlam told truths that no-one paid attention to.

a reply to: Bedlam

"Truths" ?

Care to elaborate?

You know that sometimes folks in threads
act more like post grad researchers in psych
than the topic experts they intimate
that they are

(in order to draw out the 'crazy' in order
to study it for their research paper and
all).

Kev

a reply to: Bedlam

That's not entirely true. Some people here put their head to the ground to listen for when the bedlam express is coming by to drop off some more "interesting" tales.

So about that "Frame Dragging Effect' and light again?

If you don't want to talk about that (you know SF-312's and all) I'll settle for a decent Steak Recipe or even a martini recipe. Random request I know but I'm starving and will break for lunch soon so food is on the mind.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam
So about that "Frame Dragging Effect' and light again?

Hey, no fair! I've totally put on weight! And how would you even kn-



/furtive-glances-in-all-directions

originally posted by: jimmyx


the 1952 DC sighting was NOT ONLY on radar, but visually, by thousands of people....you can't fake that with a "radar screen image".....this puts at least this part of the OP's narrative into dispute...also, the "Phoenix Lights" sighting was NOT ONLY over Phoenix, but, visually sighted by people further south of Phoenix over a span of time....

I think you are getting confused as I certainly didn't claim that the Phoenix Lights were a by-product of "Project Palladium". It was part of the first paragraph because, in my opinion,that event is somewhat of a bookend to the modern UFO age. (Which anyone is entitled to argue against).

As for the DC sightings in 1952 you have to go back to an earlier thread to see where the idea for this one lies.

Revisiting the 1952 Washington DC UFO Flap

There were certainly not thousands of people who made a visual sighting. Just a few pilots and radar operators. This was not a mass visually observed event nor do there seem to be any genuine photos or movie footage of the event. It was the media reaction and the previous events building up to the Washington UFO flap that caused massive public interest.

Now that all said. This is certainly not my theory and has been postulated by a number of other UFO researchers. I made a point of saying in the conclusion that I could not find anything to prove Project Palladium (or it's forerunner) was used to create the UFO flap over DC.

I like to write threads up in a certain way (without forcing my own opinions into it too heavily and trying to look at an alternative a view). This is so people can make up their own minds and perhaps offer more information or a different angle to the story. So I don't think your point about the DC 1952 UFOs is totally wrong but it is important to check the fine details as well (and perhaps pay attention what Kelly.., Bass.. and Bedlam are talking about)

MM

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Bedlam

"Truths" ?

Care to elaborate?

Bybyots is taken by my username. This goes on back and forth over multiple threads.

Tom O'Bedlam is a persistent character in fiction. He often takes the form of a sort of male Cassandra, giving warnings while no one listens.

In my case, my RW name is Tom O'Redacted, my less rude nick from the Army was Bedlam, the old lady found it amusing to put them together, which is where I first got the heads-up it was in King Lear et al.

a reply to: Bedlam

Thanks for the explanation!

a reply to: mirageman

Gave you a star for being a scholarly gentleman

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

NP. About half the time I was blowing stuff up for God and country, which led through a long boring story to being pasted with 'Bedlam'. It does beat the hell out of the other nick I left behind at Benning.

a reply to: framedragged

I know everything Framed... You know ....bout that thing....I know Framed...I know. Also, you might want to keep the blinds closed at night and plant a bush or something thicker near your rear bedroom window. Just saying.


JK

a reply to: CardDown

I'm not familiar with the Soviet capabilities of the era. Could the USSR have been spoofing radar ghosts?

Hello C, it's not as easy as I expected to find good information on Soviet countermeasures. There are a few academic books that touch on the subject and their details are sparse. The references cite sources from various boxes in US archives. For example, click the thumbnail from 'Secrets of Signals Intelligence During the Cold War and Beyond
edited by Matthew M. Aid, Cees Wiebes' link:



It seems intuitively likely that the Soviets would have had something along the lines of Palladium and we're stymied by the English-speaking end of our internet resources. That and the fact that most English sources are predisposed to focusing on Allied technology and successes.

It raises questions about point-scoring and historical disclosure. What would stop historians like GK Haines from laying claim to the Washington DC flap? Conversely, why wouldn't Soviet historians take the credit for what happened 40 years prior to Glasnost? What harm could come from either side's historians shedding light on these events when they occurred so long ago?

Out of interest, here's a document on 'Soviet Army: operations and tactics' from 1984 that includes a section on Soviet ECM. Spoofing radar returns is noticeably absent if that means anything. Check out Chapter 15 (page 178) in this US Army pdf. It's just interesting reading and spoofing ECM would more likely be described in docs from USAF, Navy or CIA et al.