CIA releases UFO ‘Black Vault’ documents early: How to see them Online

a reply to: Waterglass

I downloaded the untouched version and have been choosing files at random, fascinating read so far.

In one file that I randomly chose they're talking about a company called Experimental Machine Building and project Mohammed's tomb from 1992- building a flying saucer that hovers and also moves extremely fast, faster than the eye can see. It talks about the technology used to do so via "extracting the inner energy of the matter" and using that to fuel the engines. They are interviewing one or two people from the company, whom claim that they "can demonstrate it." (Vasiliy Shabetnik and maybe Vladimir/Vasiliy Dmitriyevich- the names switch around)

Cold fusion is briefly introduced and then it goes on to say word for word:

We call this phenomenon 'energy conversion.' And the jar itself is a primitive converter model. Water boils in it. Using the scientific language, we are dealing with a phase transition. Yet in this case the water particles are moving in an orderly fashion due to an electric field. And in such cases, according to our theory, phase transitions result in an increase in the energy release. The gain is some 2.12-4.2 times greater than the work spent."

He goes on to say that energy extracted from the phase transition of water boiling would be "extremely primitive" and "such a converter is not suitable for space flights," but then claims that certain metals would be sufficient.

I don't understand all of it but it sure is interesting.

I personally believe in secret advanced human technology more than aliens.

Thanks for the OP, I'm very entertained!

Here's an interesting one from back in the day where the CIA 'confirms global monitoring and intercept orders for UFOs'.

UFO CHRONICLE | CIA Doc Confirms Global Monitoring and 'Intercept' Orders for UFOs (1952)

And Dr McDonald on how they 'got the signal out of the system'

originally posted by: karl 12
Here's an interesting one from back in the day where the CIA 'confirms global monitoring and intercept orders for UFOs'.

And what did they get as a result?

And Dr McDonald on how they 'got the signal out of the system'

The surprising thing about that is after the botched 1947 news release from Roswell Army Air Field, that it took them 5 years to stop individual bases from talking to the press about UFOs.

Dr McDonald doesn't explain how the signal got into the system in the first place. Dr Clarke, former UFO believer turned skeptic, claims to explain that:

Cold War hysteria sparked UFO obsession, study finds

British researchers, who uncovered thousands of previously secret government and military reports and investigated dozens of sightings, have concluded that flying saucers were a product of Cold War paranoia - not visitors from outer space.

The study by David Clarke and Andy Roberts concluded that none of the evidence pointed to any form of alien contact. Instead the widespread belief in UFOs that began in the 1950s and lasted until the present day should be seen as a social phenomenon.

Clarke said that the UFO craze began at the start of the Cold War, when the new threat of atomic war with the Soviet Union hung over the world. 'It was just simple to want to believe in something up there in the sky that could come and rescue us,' he said.

Many of the early UFO sightings were seemingly confirmed by Britain's fledgling radar system, often scrambling fighter planes into the sky to investigate sightings. But, as the new technology improved, the number of incidents appearing on radar quickly dwindled to zero. 'That cannot be a coincidence. Those early confirmations were just a product of a primitive radar system,' Clarke said.

The CIA probably didn't know what the UFOs were, but mentioned the possibility of putting the phenomenon to work for them:

In CIA memos marked 'secret' and seen by The Observer, top officials consider exploiting the UFO craze. 'I suggest that we discuss the possible offensive or defensive utilisation of these phenomena for psychological warfare purposes,' wrote CIA director Walter Smith in 1952.

In fact there has been widespread speculation that intelligence agencies continue to exploit the phenomenon through such operations as project Serpo, or more recently, TTSA which had staff heavy with intelligence backgrounds.

Some officials believed the hysteria too:

Clarke, who started out as a believer in UFOs but is now a sceptic, said that the belief in alien visitation had once reached up to the highest positions in government. Prime Minister Winston Churchill once ordered an investigation into it and Lord Mountbatten was a firm believer in flying saucers. In the 1950s Britain set up a flying saucer working party of top Ministers and army staff. 'That is why this field is important for academic research. It did have an impact on government policy at a crucial stage in history,' he said.

But there's no doubt the governments tried to cover up the UFO sightings, which they couldn't explain back then.

One scrap of consolation for conspiracy theorists is evidence that the British and US Governments did embark on a systematic cover-up of UFO sightings, especially by military pilots. Reports were kept secret and military personnel told not to talk about them. But Clarke believes that such actions were taken, not to disguise contact with aliens, but because the Government did not want to admit that it too could not explain the UFO hysteria.

Here's a short essay I've composed along the line of thought that military intelligence agencies being interested in UFO reports [as this new release of documents shows] is an indication they believe 'UFOs are real". It equally plausibly could indicate they know they aren't. :

Videos such as recent missile launches in Russia and China and from around the world [and off it], over decades of observations, demonstrate how a collection of public observations [especially with video imaging] can provide insights into measurable characteristics of very interesting aerospace activities of highly classified or commercially private nature.

The most fertile hunting ground for such worldwide reports over the last seventy-plus years has been the UFO literature, both print, oral, and now internet. Secondary sources might include astronomy club newsletters.

Any national intelligence service anxious to appraise a potential adversary’s aerospace capabilities would therefore obviously seek hints in UFO reports and elsewhere, along with traditional espionage practices.

Such an agency would also realize that an adversary’s recognition of the intelligence value of such generally-disregarded public reports could result in imposing censorship and thus a loss of such opportunistic insights.

Any national military security service would recognize the symmetric informational vulnerability of their own highly secret aerospace activities if observed, misinterpreted, and reported as UFOs, if recognized overseas.

As a defensive measure, such an agency would have to keep tabs on domestic UFO reports to detect any leakage of unrecognized clues to its own secret projects that it was responsible for protecting, that an insightful adversary might be able to exploit, in order to take steps to reduce [or scramble] easy observability.

Consequently, a thorough national security program would have an excellent two-part justification for actively collecting and thoroughly assessing worldwide “UFO reports”, regardless of any potential additional stimuli.

Deliberate observable performances to calibrate actual accuracy of such reports might be a prudent measure.

Deliberate activities to spoof adversary observers or evaluators might be feasible, even if merely to advertise to other intelligence agencies that such an information window was more unreliable than naively assumed.

To preserve the value of such opportunistic unrecognized information resources, the agency’s justifiably-intense interest in such reports would necessarily have to be kept secret, or disguised, or misinterpretable.

Additionally, a study of national ‘UFO reports’ is an excellent way to characterize the effectiveness and sensitivity and the blind spots of that nation’s aerospace monitoring technology, to identify exploitable weaknesses or single-point system failure possibilities.

For those interested in an actual "disclosure" (a leak of a technology that was only being conceptualized -- and hardly even understood -- at the time), I recommend those "Isaac CARET" documents.

Here's the very first, ever, mentioning (albeit not referred to by the exact term as we know it today) of a solid-state neural network based on optoelectronics (hardware-confined electromagnetic fields):

First of all, you wouldn't open up their hardware to find a CPU here, and a data bus there, and some kind of memory over there. Their hardware appeared to be perfectly solid and consistent in terms of material from one side to the other. Like a rock or a hunk of metal. But upon [much] closer inspection, we began to learn that it was actually one big holographic computational substrate - each "computational element" (essentially individual particles) can function independently, but are designed to function together in tremendously large clusters. I say it’s holographic because you can divide it up into the smallest chunks you want and still find a scaled-down but complete representation of the whole system. They produce a nonlinear computational output when grouped. So 4 elements working together is actually more than 4 times more powerful than 1. Most of the internal "matter" in their crafts (usually everything but the outermost housing) is actually this substrate and can contribute to computation at any time and in any state. The shape of these "chunks" of substrate also had a profound effect on its functionality, and often served as a "shortcut" to achieve a goal that might otherwise be more complex.

www.whipnet.com...

As a side note, I could swear that those documents (whether genuine or fake) first came out in late 2004, or early 2005, and were then followed by (forced) "disclosure" of a "discovery" of memristors in 2005 (which are to solid-state neural-network hardware as transistors are to the current, publicly available semiconductor technology like CPU/RAM, etc.), which was all followed by fake CGI "photos" of supposed drones themselves a couple of years later (2006/2007).

Now, I don't really know what to think of the "language" being mentioned in those documents... other than it being some kind of surface-based "programming" for the hardware neural network, using some kind of magnetic material in order to change the distribution of the EM fields within the network... because, as is already well known, once a neural network is trained into doing whatever it does, it becomes virtually impossible to change its behavior in a predictable and controllable manner.

To even begin changing a neural network in such a way, one would have to know which nodes to change in the first place (because any change to even a single node quickly propagates to neighboring nodes, and thus effs up the whole attempt). Secondly, changing of individual nodes (their weigths, and the weigths of their connections) is possible only with software-based networks.

In a hardware-based neural network, it becomes literally impossible to access individual nodes deep within the material, so the only way to change the network's behavior is by doing something on the material's surface, which, in turn, will affect the nodes on (or very close to) the surface, and then those nodes will propagate any changes deeper inside.

In a way, what "Isaac CARET" documents truly describe is general purpose, hardware-based neural network that can be "programmed" to perform any desired task, exactly like general-purpose CPUs do right now.

If those documents aren't a disclosure (a leak, actually) of alien technology being reverse-engineered (by a bunch of physicists, mathematicians, linguists, IT professionals, and a whole load of military personnel to keep all of them in line, in order to prevent leaks like that one from happening ever again... which is something they've obviously been extremely successful at, since we haven't heard even a peep about this technology in the 15+ years since then... and with that whole, literally impossible-to-build-by-the-very-laws-of-physics "quantum computers" crap that's being shoved down our throats as a cover for the actual alien optoelectronics technology being rebuilt from scratch)... then I honestly don't know what a disclosure should look like.

a reply to: JimOberg

A nice listing of correct assumptions, yet I'm missing one which I think it is equally as important as those stated, namely:

"deliberate observable performances on domestic theaters to calibrate one's own target identification systems and defense system response time and capabilities"

... of which the various Nimitz incidents are a good example.

Nobody wants your defense system to mistake an incoming missile for an UFO. The outcome would be devastating.

Also, I ignore whether personnel in the military intelligence believe UFO are real. I wouldn't care if they do, provided they suspend belief when on duty.

a reply to: Waterglass
I can't say these are answering my questions. This shows an awful lot of redaction for something almost 45 years ago when they are supposed to declassify most old secrets after 40 years now, when they should be obsolete.


I also don't understand why the original CIA file is numbered C05515646.tif, but at the top of the page it has a different number C00015238. Anybody got any explanation to clarify why they don't match?

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
No doubt it will all be heavily redacted if some of the documents on the link you posted has anything to go by.

Fill in the blanks, and hey presto.

Can we assume where it's redacted it's talking about aliens? Or just some secret Earth project? I guess we can fill in the redacted blanks with whatever we want?

a reply to: JimOberg
That could explain why intelligence agencies seem to have so much interest in UFO organizations and reports. It sounds plausible to me.

originally posted by: clusterfok
For those interested in an actual "disclosure" (a leak of a technology that was only being conceptualized -- and hardly even understood -- at the time), I recommend those "Isaac CARET" documents.

A scientist posting on ATS thought those documents were a very amateurish hoax which might fool someone with high school education. You can see his response in the thread on those documents:

This thread is about the hoaxed report that would appear to support the hoaxed CGI composite images of "drones" that appeared online in 2007

originally posted by: mbkennel
It's a dreadful hoax. Way worse than Titor or even early Serpo.

The "science" sucks and is written at a level for high-schoolers. No answering any useful question.

And 'inches'? So, they're gonna talk about in English units irrelevant crap about how big it is in the report, rather than what the physics and effects of antigravity is?

It's like having a report of an Alien autopsy and featuring how your hot dog you had at lunch smelled better instead of any analysis of ET physiology or genetics.

[yes I am a scientist]

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: JimOberg

"deliberate observable performances on domestic theaters to calibrate one's own target identification systems and defense system response time and capabilities"

... of which the various Nimitz incidents are a good example.

Since this thread involves theBlackVault, the operator of that site, John Greenewald Jr said the Pentagon denies that they would use one branch of the military, say the Air Force, to test the radar systems etc of another branch of the military, say, the Navy. However, he believes that is a distinct possibility for some of the Navy UFO reports, despite the pentagon denials that they would do such a thing. He can't prove it, but it does seem like quite plausible speculation.

CoastToCoast labelled this video "Jacques Vallee", who may have been on the same night, but this is actually John Greenewald Jr and not Jacques Vallee.

Time index 36:50
John Greenewald Jr (from TheBlackVault): "A lot of what the Navy is seeing, I feel, are Air Force tests against the Navy without their knowledge. The pentagon told me they would not do that. But I don't buy it. I believe that in a true testing environment that there has to be some Air Force technology that needs to be utilized against our most powerful Navy on the planet, which is our own. That's the best way to test it. Just a theory. I don't say that's all the UFO sightings. I'm just talking about some of the military encounters that have come out...I think there's going to be a military testing aspect to this that will come out eventually."

originally posted by: ArbitrageurA scientist posting on ATS thought those documents were a very amateurish hoax which might fool someone with high school education. You can see his response in the thread on those documents:

This thread is about the hoaxed report that would appear to support the hoaxed CGI composite images of "drones" that appeared online in 2007

... trying to manually format the whole quote-post-url mess proved to be nigh impossible, so I gave up on it...

Now, to the point.

Yes, those "drone pictures" from 2006/7 are undoubtedly a complete hoax. However, I do distinctly remember that Isaac CARET documents first appeared in 2005 at the latest, way before any CGI "drone pictures" disinformation campaign kicked in.

As for a "scientist" claiming that what those documents basically describe (re-read my post if you've already forgotten), I am an actual engineer with MBA in Computer Sciences (both hardware and software aspects of it) from ETF (Faculty of Electrical Engineering) at the University of Belgrade (if we're going to establish any credentials here, however flimsy such claims are on the Internet), and I can tell you that in my whole professional carrier (and with my 45 years of age) I have never, ever, seen a better description of a hardware-based (optoelectronics) neural network than in the quote I gave in my previous post... albeit a description coming from somebody who had no idea what kind of technology they were looking at, at the time.

Looking at it from today's perspective, however, it is now perfectly obvious what they were describing back then (which gives it much more credibility than any "scientist" claiming that such technology is impossible).

My point, again, is, and has always been, that disinformation campaign (which started in 2006, after the previous disinformation campaign, from late 2005, fell apart, and I mean the one claiming that memristors have actually been theorized about since 1960/70-something, which is a completely fabricated claim and an outright lie, regardless of any historically-adjusted "sources") surrounding those documents would've been perfectly justified at the time... because the technology described there is still the most advanced hardware AI technology that has ever been spoken of or written about in public.

You do realize that such cutting edge technologies (whether human, or reverse-engineered alien ones) are kept away from the public for at least several decades, before they are introduced as perfectly functional devices, right?

My second point is: don't be surprised if you suddenly hear stories about hardware AI being sold to the public.

Oh, wait... what is nVidia's Tensor Core all about, again?

Right, it's hardware AI... though, admittedly, not of the optoelectronics kind, only of the (already obsolete) semiconductor one... but that's how people are, intentionally and systematically, desensitize to the idea of reverse-engineered alien technologies... and, it's perfectly obvious that that approach has been working like a charm so far. People still believe that "human ingenuity" (read: magical thinking) has accomplished in just 100 years what the whole human species couldn't have accomplished in hundreds of thousands of years before that.

Talking about complete, mass schizophrenia... sheesh...

By the way, the optoelectronics version of hardware AI is still undoubtedly under strict military control, and I'm only waiting for the moment they admit publicly that they already have a working and fully functional "artificial brain" out there, in some command center, "advising" some generals what to do, or something (that is, one that hasn't been a prototype for quite some time now).

With all the colossal clusterf***s that we've been witnessing lately (with those mRNA "vaccines" being the latest and greatest, but not yet visible one), such an admission of following "advice" from some complete-crap-of-an-AI, right into an engineered self-destruction of the whole human species, wouldn't surprise me the slightest.

And, with that thought, I leave you now to keep on believing whatever you've already chosen to believe in...

a reply to: JimOberg


Nice writ:

Jim why don't you and I file a Qui Tam lawsuit against any and all government agencies that are wasting all those taxpayer dollars chasing hogwash.

he False Claims Act authorizes qui tam lawsuits to assist the government in prosecuting cases to recover damages and penalties for fraud against the government. If the case is successful, the relator can earn a whistleblower reward.

Our recovery of the suit could be worth millions to us. Plus, since it would be a lawsuit under Federal jurisdiction we could then subpoena any and all agencies including NASA for evidence and documents. Unless however they drop that National Security of the USA stamp on it. Then, we would then have to ask; what if.........................

Assuming you are indeed the "real" Jim Oberg we you could get back into space exploration and possibly win a noble prize for tamping down one of the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity; that ET and UFOs are nothing more than hogwash. Guess how many shrinks would go out of business.

Reference: False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 - 3733


Qui tam lawsuits – whistleblower guide & FAQs

Oh, one of our potential "wormholes" into this matter is going after some guy named Robert Bigelow and his former organization.