Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

A lot of hype going around. The hype show is in its second act.

Hype away until the curtain falls, then ye will know who is mad and who is glad

a reply to: celltypespecific

They chose every word carefully?

Joseph Gradisher, who is a spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare; on the using the term UAP

“the ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges.”

In military controlled airspace. If its not in one of those....they aren't arsed!

a reply to: celltypespecific

Never heard of MDPI. Lets do a quick web search.

Hmm... Reviewer sends warning

Also Kevin H. Knuth seems to be the chief editor of MDPI Entropy.

I kinda doubt that there has been any actual peer review.

a reply to: mirageman

Alien fanatics?

a reply to: moebius

LOL!

I was just looking at a few reviews of MDPI too.

.....Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), churns out nearly 160 scholarly journals a year, many of them of mediocre quality, according to Jeffrey Beall, an associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver, and one of the world’s leading experts on what he calls “predatory” open access publishing.

Each week, MDPI and other questionable publishers hound Dr. Lee by email, asking her to review submissions that she considers shoddy. Mr. Beall has called this particular environmental publication a “pretend journal.” So when Dr. Lee next saw the biology student, she alerted her to the potential problems and redirected her to more credible scholarly publications, such as FACETS, a Canadian open access journal.

www.universityaffairs.ca...

But in the spirit of fairness the do have a Wikipedia page...which is rather interesting too...

How could that New York Times article possibly run in the Science section?

originally posted by: coursecatalog
How could that New York Times article possibly run in the Science section?

Apparently you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.....

This is the new reality we live in coursecatalog...it will take time adjusting ...but you will soon be acclimated.

This was the end of the beginning phase of Disclosure.....

I am starting to get another premonition....

a reply to: celltypespecific

There was no Science in that interview.

The below is interesting....its ANOTHER NAVY PILOT "SUNSHINE" released today.

The point of the below is to illustrate the changing narrative on the phenomena.
Additionally, it would be interesting to determine if Brian "Sunshine" Sinclair is affiliated with TTSA, DoD, or CIA.






What strikes me is that "Sunshine" is very well prepared/briefed....his talking points are concise and clear.
He is most likely still working with the Navy or DoD in some capacity.
Additionally, "Sunshine" is a perfect American Poster Boy to communicate this message....

When delivering news about such paradigm shifting potentially threatening concepts its best delivered by a friendly photogenic former officer.

a reply to: celltypespecific



Good, Day, Sunshine!

Three of the finest UFO story tellers America has.

Who is your favourite Celtic?

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: celltypespecific

Good, Day, Sunshine!

Three of the finest UFO story tellers America has.

Who is your favourite Celtic?

That's actually pretty funny

Profound Statement by John Greenewald of the BlackVault.

Skip to 34 min

originally posted by: celltypespecific
The Mick West and Arbit's of the past:

Even Thomas Edison weighed in by saying “you can take it from me that it is a pure fake...I have no doubt that airships will be successfully constructed in the near future but...it is absolutely impossible to imagine that a man could construct a successful airship and keep the matter a secret.”

www.popularmechanics.com...

Was Thomas Edison right or wrong about airships being hard to hide? I don't get your point. If he was right should Mick West and I feel complimented that you're praising our astute skepticism? The article doesn't provide any basis to show either way.

By the way I've been in some airship hangars, they are enormous and I would think not easy to hide. Some people joked they have their own weather systems inside where on some days you can see clouds near the top if the hangar. So depending on how big the airships were, it's not something that's very easy to hide, and if they used hydrogen or helium, they needed a lot. I'm not sure how easy it is to hide the procurement of such large amounts, when you consider the limited number of suppliers and their production capacities. I remember a NASA employee saying the "secret space program" that supposedly made secret shuttle launches could be proven false since that much hydrogen procurement couldn't be hidden.

I don't know if you can appreciate how big these hangars are until you go inside one.
Cardington airship hangar and land sold for £10.5m


Not that I particularly like Edison, for trying to push his crappy DC electricity when Tesla's AC electricity was superior in terms of efficiency of production and distribution costs, and Edison used not too ethical means to discredit AC by saying how dangerous it is and it's going to kill everybody. Well we are using AC now and we aren't dead yet so Edison was wrong about that, I've even been zapped by AC 120V-240V a few times and it didn't kill me.

originally posted by: Phage

Re: the 19th century "sightings":
"Jacobs believes that many airship tales originated with "enterprising reporters perpetrating journalistic hoaxes."[8] He notes that many of these accounts "are easy to identify because of their tongue-in-cheek tone, and accent on the sensational."[8] Furthermore, in many such newspaper hoaxes, the author makes his intent obvious "by saying – in the last line – that he was writing from an insane asylum (or something to that effect)." " en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting. So maybe Edison had a point? As far as 19th century airships go, not about AC electricity killing all of us.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
Profound Statement by John Greenewald of the BlackVault.

Skip to 34 min

What profound statement?
I listened from 33 minutes to the end and didn't hear anything profound.
I already explained that if the navy says they don't know what the UAP is that doesn't rule out a secret toy of the air force that the navy doesn't know about, so I think some people are reading way too much into the navy's "unknown" statement to infer that nobody anywhere knows what it is. That's possible but I don't assume that.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: celltypespecific
The Mick West and Arbit's of the past:

Even Thomas Edison weighed in by saying “you can take it from me that it is a pure fake...I have no doubt that airships will be successfully constructed in the near future but...it is absolutely impossible to imagine that a man could construct a successful airship and keep the matter a secret.”

www.popularmechanics.com...

Was Thomas Edison right or wrong about airships being hard to hide? I don't get your point. If he was right should Mick West and I feel complimented that you're praising our astute skepticism? The article doesn't provide any basis to show either way.

By the way I've been in some airship hangars, they are enormous and I would think not easy to hide. Some people joked they have their own weather systems inside where on some days you can see clouds near the top if the hangar. So depending on how big the airships were, it's not something that's very easy to hide, and if they used hydrogen or helium, they needed a lot. I'm not sure how easy it is to hide the procurement of such large amounts, when you consider the limited number of suppliers and their production capacities. I remember a NASA employee saying the "secret space program" that supposedly made secret shuttle launches could be proven false since that much hydrogen procurement couldn't be hidden.

I don't know if you can appreciate how big these hangars are until you go inside one.
Cardington airship hangar and land sold for £10.5m


Not that I particularly like Edison, for trying to push his crappy DC electricity when Tesla's AC electricity was superior in terms of efficiency of production and distribution costs, and Edison used not too ethical means to discredit AC by saying how dangerous it is and it's going to kill everybody. Well we are using AC now and we aren't dead yet so Edison was wrong about that, I've even been zapped by AC 120V-240V a few times and it didn't kill me.

originally posted by: Phage

Re: the 19th century "sightings":
"Jacobs believes that many airship tales originated with "enterprising reporters perpetrating journalistic hoaxes."[8] He notes that many of these accounts "are easy to identify because of their tongue-in-cheek tone, and accent on the sensational."[8] Furthermore, in many such newspaper hoaxes, the author makes his intent obvious "by saying – in the last line – that he was writing from an insane asylum (or something to that effect)." " en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting. So maybe Edison had a point? As far as 19th century airships go, not about AC electricity killing all of us.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
Profound Statement by John Greenewald of the BlackVault.

Skip to 34 min

What profound statement?
I listened from 33 minutes to the end and didn't hear anything profound.
I already explained that if the navy says they don't know what the UAP is that doesn't rule out a secret toy of the air force that the navy doesn't know about, so I think some people are reading way too much into the navy's "unknown" statement to infer that nobody anywhere knows what it is. That's possible but I don't assume that.

Ok understood.

I listened from 33 minutes to the end and didn't hear anything profound.
I already explained that if the navy says they don't know what the UAP is that doesn't rule out a secret toy of the air force that the navy doesn't know about, so I think some people are reading way too much into the navy's "unknown" statement to infer that nobody anywhere knows what it is. That's possible but I don't assume that.

Yes because the Pentagon allows the navy to go public with AF's system that is so classified that no one in the navy material command or intelligence knows that it exits and is so advanced that our front line capabilities can't identify or counter it in any way. Still they fly it inside carrier bubble and let that go public. Sure, sure. That's how the military operates.

a reply to: Sublant

Still they fly it inside carrier bubble and let that go public.

It was not "allowed" to go public. The videos were obtained under false pretenses. Or haven't you been paying attention?

originally posted by: celltypespecific
For the true believers....the manuscript has now been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication!!! Excellent work!!

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles

Ironically, this attempt to gain scientific respect for ufology will backfire because every scientist with half a brain cell will recognize what they did.

In the preprint review comments (link) someone clearly pointed out the flaw in their analysis of the last 32 frames of the ATFLIR video.
Anyone who understands physics at high school level can see this flaw:

Models (20) - (23) use the following kinematics for either the full 32 frames or the first 16 of the 32 frames:

x = 1/2.a.t^2 + x0

This is wrong. The model should be:

x = 1/2.a.t^2 + v0.t + x0
where v0 is the velocity of the object in the first frame.

Velocity v0 can be computed from the angular displacement of the object over time in the part of the video where the ATFLIR is still locked on the object. It is 0,27 degrees per second.

Figure 6 in your article shows the object traverses half the FOV in NAR mode at 2x magnification in 1 second.
That is an angular velocity of 0,175 degrees per second, very close to the initial velocity v0.

If you make the plot, it becomes even clearer that the object simply continues its constant speed with respect to the jet.

Yet they consciously chose to ignore it and publish anyway - a very foolish thing to do.

Science can only progress if you stick to the facts, not if you stick your head in the sand.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Sublant

Still they fly it inside carrier bubble and let that go public.

It was not "allowed" to go public. The videos were obtained under false pretenses. Or haven't you been paying attention?

They allowed it to be circulated and not classified. That's how the Pentagon handles information security of the most sensitive assets we have. That's why there are videos abound of black ISR platforms from the 80's and 90's. What, there isn't?

This recent DeLonge article in Kerrang! has as much science in it as the NYT piece:

Tom Delonge Talks UFOs, All Things Extraterrestisl and His Quest for Truth

“It’s imperative that the world comes together over this,” he says. “We might find out one day that our ancient religious stories are connected to this, or that these visitors, whether they’re life-forms or robots or whatever, might be playing with the social engineering of the planet. If there’s been some type of influence on us – even if it’s not bad – then that calls on all countries to ask, ‘Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? How do we get there together?’”

He seems to be just throwing things at the wall here. Robots. Gods. Social engineering. One world government.

Mi familia.......