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

a reply to: celltypespecific

LOL. I recall that doing its rounds, they all look pretty jolly and old Tom looks wakadoodles )))

a reply to: Sublant
What I can tell you is that workers from Area 51 were interviewed and they described how highly compartmented the work there is. When a project came out of a hangar for testing, the workers who worked in that specific hangar were allowed to view the test since they already knew about it and worked on it, but they said all the other workers in all the other hangars were sequestered and were not allowed to witness any of the other tests from projects in other hangars, only what was in the hangar they worked in.

This much I feel was likely conveyed truthfully, and until a project is known to the public I think it's reasonable to presume some degree of compartmentation remains on a "need to know" basis. So exactly which secrets get shared and to which personnel and which levels I can't say, but I try not to make too many assumptions in that regard, and consider the area 51 witnesses which I found to be credible in describing the degree to which information is not shared.

So it's entirely possible some US Navy analyst looking at some UAP videos is not privy to every type of technology that exists even in the US, so I can't rule out that he won't know what some unidentified object is even if it's of US origin, because nobody told him and it's still compartmented information.

Another possibility I would consider plausible, is that the Navy analyst does know what it is, and he lied to say he didn't because it's what he was told to do. Maybe someone above him thought that was a better alternative than saying "it's classified and we can't talk about it" because even saying that would be revealing too much. What I don't understand after reading years of posts by people on ATS saying "The government can't be trusted...they are lying to us...they know more than they are saying...we want disclosure...etc" and what happened to that? Now some of those same people have done a 180 and now think the government/military is 100% truthful and you can completely accept every statement they make as truth?

I think what we are told is still a mix of truth and lies just like it's always been, and it's not easy to sort out which is which sometimes. When you have enough independent means of confirmation you can verify some things like the moon landing really happened, but I don't know how to verify what's being kept secret from area 51 or what a particular Navy analyst did or didn't know and whether or not he was told to lie to preserve some secret. And in my opinion, to use your expression, "That's how the military operates."

a reply to: Sublant

The airforce has flown previously classified Drones "Beast of Kandahar" on the same flight path of U2s without the knowledge being given to those U2 pilots.

There is a recorded event that there was nearly an air collision between the U2s and the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel drone as a result of this. Both aircraft were doing the same recon op which is why they were in the same airspace.

The reason the pilots were not briefed, was due to them not having a need to know about a highly classified drone, which wasn't declassified until some 7 years later after the near collision.

So if the airforce doesn't tell...the airforce about thier own classified projects, what makes you think it would tell the Navy?

What better way to test an experimental classified aircraft/drone than to put it up against the best the Navy has to offer!

If, as reported, these UAPS followed the carrier group all the way to the middle east and no action was taken against these UAPS, I would deduce that it's quite possible they were there as a support system potentially also. Not everyone onboard would have a need to know...

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

originally posted by: Guest101

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:

"This is wrong. The model should be:
...

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.

That plot is the exact same plot from metabunk I posted back on page 89 of this thread, trying to encourage our PhD friend Celty to make his own high school level plot of the data from the video, instead of accepting the flawed analysis of other people who apparently are so scientifically illiterate that they can't make such a simple plot that any high school student can make.

I know some people's eyes may glaze over when the see math (which is easy as you said but some people have math phobia). The plot is so simple and the picture it paints is so clear in not showing any anomalous acceleration that it shouldn't make anybody's eyes glaze over and anybody who has high school skills should be able to quickly and easily duplicate it from the same video.

This is from my post back on page 89 of this thread, showing the plot which shows no anomalous acceleration at the end. The line is a little wavy where it crosses the zero point but once you dig into how the technology works there are some possible explanations for that which don't involve anomalous acceleration of the object and anyway, the papers aren't claiming that's anomalous, just the illusion at the end of the video which may look like anomalous acceleration, but it's not.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

"What really happened according to that displayed value? Initially it shows 4 degrees right as indicated, then 3 degrees right, then 2 degrees right and so on, so the object is being tracked up until the last few seconds and the whole time the camera is moving toward the left. If the camera wasn't moving to the left and just had a stationary position relative to the plane's axis, and if the object was visible in a wide enough field of view, what this means is you would see the object moving to the left during the entire video. (which by the way does not necessarily imply the object is moving to the left, it just means it would appear that way in the display).

So you can plot those sensor azimuth values on a graph yourself, you have the video, so you don't need to take anybody's word for it. Someone on metabunk did that and this is what they got, you can do it too and see if you get the same thing:"

www.metabunk.org...


Celty, did you ever try to make that graph yourself as I suggested back on page 89, to confirm these PhD's (and a retired computer programmer named Larry Cates) claiming something other than what that graph shows are incompetent?

HOLY COW!! I agree 100% with everything Arb just posted. Maybe we are living in a post disclosure world .

What I can tell you is that when a worker from Area 51 was interviewed he described how highly compartment-ed the work there is. When a project came out of a hangar for testing, the workers who worked in that specific hangar were allowed to view the test since they already knew about it and worked on it, but they said all the other workers in all the other hangars were sequestered and were not allowed to witness any of the other tests from projects in other hangars, only what was in the hangar they worked in. That workers name was Bob Lazar.

Regarding the end of the Greenwald appearance on CtoC

So there addressing it, but they use to address it but lied about it.

We don’t know what it is but its a national security risk.

Confusion

I'm surprised he went for this meaningless Navy announcement...

Interestingly, TTSA has something called on their blog, the Vault.

I guess that's the White Vault

Watch your back Greenwald


We are in an era where loads of people will believe anything when right before their eye’s reality contradicts them. Or reality cleary is deceiving them. The US president situation is an example of this. 911 is another example of public blindness.

Now these fellows from TTSA are taking advantage of this tendency.

Its called self-deception. And the ability to deceive others.

a reply to: Willtell

We live in a world where self deception is seemingly rampant and it doesn't take much to plant those seeds anymore.

I bet there is hardly a cause or a need for "disinformation agents" anymore. All is required is one memetic engineer and people will eagerly spread it on their behalf, believing it to!

Ufology is Social Engineering at its finest...

There is a real phenomena...but who cares about that when you can make people believe what you want? Cult creation on a large scale...

a reply to: pigsy2400


You’re right Pigs.
I call it
Eyes Wide Shut...

Funny, somebody made a movie with that name.



I guess in this case, its Eyes wide open…and then shut

originally posted by: pigsy2400
a reply to: Sublant

The airforce has flown previously classified Drones "Beast of Kandahar" on the same flight path of U2s without the knowledge being given to those U2 pilots.

Beast of Kandahar - RQ-170 - is a subsonic urgent operational requirement frontline UAV.
It is something the Iranian military was able to detect, track and bring down.

Whatever it is on those three videos that the navy cannot identify, is something entirely different.
This is not apples to oranges, this is a fireplace to cold fusion reactor comparison.

Its quite the mystery we have at hand.....there are many highly intelligent individuals on this thread....

Yet they can't seem to put aside emotions....and apply pure logical in solving this case......

1. Why would the Navy go public and announce that UAPs/UFOs are "real"?

2. Was this policy change made in a vacuum/isolation....is this a concerted effort ?

3. Is the policy specific only to the NAVY...is this a DOD policy ?

4. What are the downstream ramifications of such a change in policy ?

5. Since UAPs are "real" is it of earthly origin or E.T. ?

6. If earthly in origin how was it possible to develop BEYOND next-generation tech 70 years ago....?

7. TTSA is clearly a GOV. sponsored entity, but for what purpose (self-described as a MEDIA company dedicated to studying and spreading info on the phenomena) ?

8. Remember the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Reid, Bigelow, Podesta, Mellon, Semivan, Justice, Herndon, Elizondo.... Why would such powerful rich men of high esteem be affiliated with a silly UFO organization...

Its time to put aside our emotions and apply pure logical to address these question.

a reply to: pigsy2400

What better way to test an experimental classified aircraft/drone than to put it up against the best the Navy has to offer!

I hear this a-lot....its utter nonsense.....

This is not a movie/video/game military spy novel........

It does not work like that in the real world...trust me.

a reply to: celltypespecific

Youve basically mentioned every query that both sides (believers - non believers) of the ufo community have.

Nobody can answer them...... Not definately anyway. We can all speculate, assume and argue, but im sure in time itll become clear what this is all about ...... Wether that be other worldly or not.

One thing i think people are missing is...... Its been a long time since a case has done this to the community in general, thats what peaks my interest, the still, as yet, unexplained mystery of it.

a reply to: pigsy2400

If, as reported, these UAPS followed the carrier group all the way to the middle east and no action was taken against these UAPS, I would deduce that it's quite possible they were there as a support system potentially also. Not everyone onboard would have a need to know...

You are suggesting that the United States Military has developed BEYOND next-generation ant-gravity TECH.

The TECH is not ours....if we had this tech our world would change over night.

a reply to: pigsy2400

So if the airforce doesn't tell...the airforce about thier own classified projects, what makes you think it would tell the Navy?

Yes....they would tell the Navy. The result of not telling the Navy ....is TTSA leaking to the world highly classified video of the Airforce's TECH...????!! No that does not make any sense....What makes more sense is that the Airforce or another depart would have notified the Navy to ensure that the TECH is not leaked.

Additionally Zondo pointed out that Airforce would not test over a carrier group for this very reason: the risk of personell on the Navy carrier leaking/discussion the sighting...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Celty, did you ever try to make that graph yourself as I suggested back on page 89, to confirm these PhD's (and a retired computer programmer named Larry Cates) claiming something other than what that graph shows are incompetent?

Ok so essentially you are stating that Kevin Knuth, Robert M Powell, Pete A. Reali, The three reviewers of the manuscript....and the entire NAVY's Analytics Department who characterize this video as an UAP are freaking IDIOTS....??

Hhhmm I need to think about that...

a reply to: Sublant

Nowhere in my post did I state that the RQ170 was what was observed during the nimitz and later sightings.

It was an example of different aspects of the military not sharing information, I made this rather clear.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
HOLY COW!! I agree 100% with everything Arb just posted. Maybe we are living in a post disclosure world

.

What I can tell you is that when a worker from Area 51 was interviewed he described how highly compartment-ed the work there is. When a project came out of a hangar for testing, the workers who worked in that specific hangar were allowed to view the test since they already knew about it and worked on it, but they said all the other workers in all the other hangars were sequestered and were not allowed to witness any of the other tests from projects in other hangars, only what was in the hangar they worked in. That workers name was Bob Lazar.

LOL...so now Arbit is a fan of Bob Lazar ...LOL

a reply to: celltypespecific

Please state exactly where I stated that anti gravity tech was in play?

Oh yeah I didn't..

a reply to: Willtell

Dear Will,
I am now truly intrigued by your obsession with TTSA. Its truly remarkable....

What do you mean by:

I'm surprised he went for this meaningless Navy announcement...

Do you truly think its a "nothingburger" that the US GOV for the first time has stated that UFOs exist.

And I guess you also believe that 9/11 was an "inside job"?

originally posted by: pigsy2400
a reply to: Willtell

We live in a world where self deception is seemingly rampant and it doesn't take much to plant those seeds anymore.

I bet there is hardly a cause or a need for "disinformation agents" anymore. All is required is one memetic engineer and people will eagerly spread it on their behalf, believing it to!

Ufology is Social Engineering at its finest...

There is a real phenomena...but who cares about that when you can make people believe what you want? Cult creation on a large scale...

Ufology is Social Engineering at its finest...

TTSA has destroyed Ufology...