Goverment UAP report is here.

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The material we know about, "Arts Parts" that apparently TTSA bought from Linda Howe, and their CRADA with the army was supposed to test that material, could have been industrial slag for all we know.

Is the bit about the US Army CRADA material being "Arts Parts" confirmed Arbi?

Given the elaborate song and dance over Lou's well documented Materials MASINT for beginners roadtrip...was hoping this was the source???

According to the CRADA schedule below….there are still outstanding results that are supposed to be fulfilled and yet to come……



Source CRADA: www.nextgov.com...

a reply to: LSU2018

Because people associate the word UFO with extraterrestrials. Like, even in some movies they'll still call the extraterrestrial spacecraft UFOs, or even damn aliens themselves UFOs even when everything has clearly been identified. Lol. Usually older movies, like 50s to 70s. I think in movies today they take out.the "flying" part and call things(wether a science fiction movie or not) things like unidentified craft, unidentified object, unidentified threat or something. Replace unidentified with unknown for even more I have read in books or heard in movies.

From my perspective this is just a re-hashing of the 1995 USAF report! In 1995, they said it was the "FINAL REPORT" and true to their statement it was full of nothing. They surely have more information but like our government's standard performance in regards to classification...it will always stay classified. They are even playing word games in changing UFO to UAP in an attempt to further cloud the conversation.

As all of the civilians UFO groups have said since their beginnings, that the government is hiding the truth. This report just confirms this.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see your point…..

By the way…..wouldn’t you think a “large ‘deflated’ balloon”s mass would have the balloon dropping in altitude versus having winds let’s say…keeping it aloft deflated? ….hmmm

Large balloon could be high altitude, and of course if it's not fully inflated it can drop, but not necessarily like a stone. It could descend slowly, and it could take a long time to descend from a high altitude.

Side story, I once had a small mylar party balloon that was against the ceiling when it was new. Some helium slowly leaked out, and it came off the ceiling, but it didn't fall to the floor, it oddly hovered about 2/3 of the way from the floor to the ceiling. There must have been a gradient in the room, and that was the stable altitude of that partially deflated balloon. I guess once the pressure inside the balloon was relaxed, the helium didn't leak out much any more and it just stayed there hovering, not ascending or descending for a long time (maybe a day). It took several days for it to fall all the way to the floor.

Concur ….It’s probably another balloon who’s picture has not been released or leaked for public consumption

I didn't really rule out the balloon in the middle of those photos, if it's a balloon, I just said another balloon we haven't seen yet could be a possibility for what they identified as a deflated balloon.

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The material we know about, "Arts Parts" that apparently TTSA bought from Linda Howe, and their CRADA with the army was supposed to test that material, could have been industrial slag for all we know.

Is the bit about the US Army CRADA material being "Arts Parts" confirmed Arbi?

That TTSA apparently acquired some materials similar to "Arts Parts" is confirmed according to this:

T om DeLonge's UFO Research Company Paid $35,000 for 'Exotic' Metals That Might Actually Just Be Slag

Dated September 29th, the financial documents include an asset purchase agreement related to the sale of “metal pieces.” To the Stars Academy is listed as the “Buyer” and company CEO Thomas DeLonge is listed as the “Seller.” The price is $35,000. The filings say that a physicist employed by To the Stars named Hal Puthoff is analyzing the metals.

According to the document, the purchased assets are:

“(i) One 1.75” x 1.25” x 0.25” piece of micron-layered Bismuth/Magnesium-Zinc metal; (ii) six pieces of Bismuth/Magnesium-Zinc metal; (iii) one piece of Aluminum that TTSA physicist Hal Puthoff already in his possession that is currently on loan from Seller; and (iv) one round black and silver metal flake that physicist Puthoff already has in his possession currently on loan from Seller (collectively, the “Metal Pieces”).”

What exactly the army evaluated, per the CRADA, if anything at all, I have not seen confirmed. I would not say confirmed, I would say "indications" in agreement with that characterization by TheDrive:

TheDrive on TTSA-Army CRADA

So, is the Army going to be working with TTSA to investigate the properties of the metamaterials it claims to have acquired over the years, including from purported UFOs, and whether they may have any potential U.S. military applications? It's unfortunately hard to say for sure at this point, though there are certainly indications that this is the case.

Given the elaborate song and dance over Lou's well documented Materials MASINT for beginners roadtrip...was hoping this was the source???

Who knows? If anybody has any updates on what the army actually looked at per the CRADA, I'd like to know.

The curated, color by numbers, rope guided disclosure tour continues.

Nothing the government says on this topic holds one grain of credibility on this subject, to me. Not after the decades of doing their best to cover up, deny, obfuscate, deflect.

All of this hoopla is seemingly very effective at distracting the public's imagination on this topic, and focusing attention away from the many whistle-blowers and former insiders that have gone on record about material research, recovered craft and debris, and a well-spring of military and aerospace knowledge on this topic that are curiously absent from the "report".

Pointing up into the sky seems to be very useful for making one look away from things stored in labs, hangars and underground facilities.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wow it's confusing......lots of poorly defined sources for materials which might have "inertial mass reduction properties."
Its weird because the chain of custody and legal transfer of ownership into the CRADA was executed with finesse - whilst the rest of the goings on were ham fisted/seemed rushed.

It's not like the US Army doesnt know a thing or 3 about materials science - so fooling them with an industrial byproduct does seem a bit outlandish.
Someone at TTSA must be a God at elevator pitches to turn the CRADA around in such a short time.... given the whole "do you want some materials that can reduce inertial mass without reducing matter quantity" proposition.

a reply to: vlawde

So, as we expected then?

Am I right in saying all of these encounters (that remain classified as UAP) were detected using the latest Radar tech?

For what it’s worth…..Elizar speaks….

Source Vid: nypost.com...

a reply to: karl 12

So the UAPTF report does confirm that the tight-lipped USAF has an ongoing pilot program on UAP's since 2020; so I'm thankful that they threw us that little tidbit of information.

But basically...the report saves NASA's financial butt, by not confronting the question that some of the UAP's involved are made from an extraterrestrial intelligence of some sort --- By saying it's NASA's job to find ET life at the present time, unless more federal money is thrown in for ET research, for other programs that may not possibly involve NASA --- (Is what I interpret it as one of the goals.)

Though here's an excerpt from the Washington Post, Saturday, June 26, 2021

"NASA Administrator Bill Nelson sad he had seen the classified UAP report when he was serving in the Senate. 'The hair stood up on the back of my neck,' he said in an interview. He also spoke with some of the pilots involved in the incidents it documented. 'They know they saw something,' he said.

While NASA was not involved in writing the public report, Nelson, who spent 6 days orbiting the Earth during a space shuttle mission in the 1980's, said he had ask the agency's scientists to study the incidents that the report addressed and their potential explanations. NASA has a small office devoted to searching for extraterrestrial life.

Nelson said his personal view was that the vastness of the universe suggested there must be alien life. 'If the universe is that big...is there likelihood of life? My answer is yes.'"

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: vlawde
Am I right in saying all of these encounters (that remain classified as UAP) were detected using the latest Radar tech?

That's unclear but I'm not sure why it would be important, radar is easy to spoof.

In the Nimitz incident, Kevin Day says Princeton had a "fleet" of at least 5 UFOs on radar at a constant altitude of 28000 feet going south.

But to hear Fravor tell the story to us, when he got to the merge plot with one of the UFOs he didn't notice anything at 28000 feet, he first saw a disturbance in the water and then the tic-tac just above it. So the fact that the Princeton's radar showed it at 28000 feet and that's not the altitude where Fravor first saw it doesn't conform it's the same object the Princeton had on radar. Furthermore, Fravor said he never saw the tictac on his radar.

After Fravor's encounter which he failed to film, he sent Chad Underwood out to try to get some video. The story gets a bit muddled, that Underwood maybe had a contact on radar at 40 miles away, but I never heard him say this, that came from the dodgy "report" with no clear provenance, could be something Elizondo threw together but it's not clear who wrote it. I did hear Underwood say something about him observing something on his radar consistent with it being jammed.

But Kevin Day's account, if taken at face value, indicates that neither Fravor nor Underwood are telling us what really happened. Fravor told Day a different account of what happened, than the account Fravor tells us in public, and Day says that he's aware of Underwood testifying that he did have visual contact with the UAP, which is not what Underwood tells us.

So indeed the government may be hiding stuff, but I don't think we are getting what really happened from the witnesses either, there are so many contradictions.

In one of the videos you can hear the pilot say to look at the AESA (radar), there's a whole fleet of them. But the video doesn't show a whole fleet, it shows just one single UFO, so again that doesn't seem to show any consistency between the radar and the audio on the video. My guess is the visual UFO is one thing, and the "fleet" on radar is something else. As far as I know the pilots never came forward on Gofast and Gimbal, so we don't have any insights from them, all we have is their videos with audio.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
For what it’s worth…..Elizar speaks….

Source Vid: nypost.com...

Elizondo says the report says they're not ours, but that's not what the report says, which is:

"Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected."

Saying they couldn't confirm they are ours is not the same thing as saying they are not ours. They apparently couldn't confirm the batman balloon was a batman balloon and since it was off the East coast of the US I think, I suspect it was ours, or maybe it was a ballon manufactured in China, but sold in the US, then, whose would it be?

How would they go about confirming that batman balloon was ours? Why couldn't they even confirm it was a batman balloon? John Greenewald says the government has very competent analysts who probably figured out it was a batman balloon, but they apparently want us to think they are too incompetent to figure that out. He could be right.

My first thought is that I am not imagining things was backed up. That's all I need at this time. ha-ha-ha)))
Well, I have expected more video than we already have seen. Few more, please.

cheers)

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm nearly sure that some are definitely ours, and many may be tests of directed energy systems for decoys and ECM. I posted over in Aviation forum, and hope for a rational engineering oriented discussion.

I'll put out there as a historical point that we now know thanks to declassification, that a significant fraction of 1960's UFO reports, which were officially deemed unexplained at the time, turned out to be tests and operations of U2, SR71, Spy satellite film retrieval, and likely additional programs. And the people running those did not disclose anything to USAF investigators.

It would be foolish to imagine that anything is different today. Nobody will volunteer anything unless officially cleared & declassified to do so, and there is nothing in it for them to do so.

I also believe that some of the leaks are intentional and directed at Chinese & Russian intelligence who are getting the message, aka "we have something but we're not letting you know exactly what it is or how it works". If you wanted to do that, what would the reports look like? They would be exactly as they are.

I set my phone down while looking at the post with these pics:


I came back in the room saw the pics at 90⁰ clockwise. I did no editing, just rotated the left pic 90 degrees. I found a shark mylar balloon photo and then couldn't help but see the mylar balloon resemblance:

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

I found a shark mylar balloon photo and then couldn't help but see the mylar balloon resemblance:

You're on your own with that one. I admit seeing a match with the Batman balloon but I think you're seeing what you want to see.

The only similarity I see is that there's a white bit along the bottom (now you've rotated the image) it's too tall, too narrow and really not very much like the balloon at all.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Do you think they might be forbidden from outright lying?

Had they confirmed it was a Batman balloon, then it likely was, the fact they can't confirm it means it wasn't a balloon?

Same with not being able to confirm some sightings were their tech.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

That's unclear but I'm not sure why it would be important, radar is easy to spoof.

If it's relatively new Radar Tech and all these were tracked using it, could it be a glitch within the tech?

If it is new radar tech, would it be spoofed so easily?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

In the Nimitz incident, Kevin Day says Princeton had a "fleet" of at least 5 UFOs on radar at a constant altitude of 28000 feet going south.

But to hear Fravor tell the story to us, when he got to the merge plot with one of the UFOs he didn't notice anything at 28000 feet, he first saw a disturbance in the water and then the tic-tac just above it. So the fact that the Princeton's radar showed it at 28000 feet and that's not the altitude where Fravor first saw it doesn't conform it's the same object the Princeton had on radar. Furthermore, Fravor said he never saw the tictac on his radar.

After Fravor's encounter which he failed to film, he sent Chad Underwood out to try to get some video. The story gets a bit muddled, that Underwood maybe had a contact on radar at 40 miles away, but I never heard him say this, that came from the dodgy "report" with no clear provenance, could be something Elizondo threw together but it's not clear who wrote it. I did hear Underwood say something about him observing something on his radar consistent with it being jammed.

But Kevin Day's account, if taken at face value, indicates that neither Fravor nor Underwood are telling us what really happened. Fravor told Day a different account of what happened, than the account Fravor tells us in public, and Day says that he's aware of Underwood testifying that he did have visual contact with the UAP, which is not what Underwood tells us.

So indeed the government may be hiding stuff, but I don't think we are getting what really happened from the witnesses either, there are so many contradictions.

In one of the videos you can hear the pilot say to look at the AESA (radar), there's a whole fleet of them. But the video doesn't show a whole fleet, it shows just one single UFO, so again that doesn't seem to show any consistency between the radar and the audio on the video. My guess is the visual UFO is one thing, and the "fleet" on radar is something else. As far as I know the pilots never came forward on Gofast and Gimbal, so we don't have any insights from them, all we have is their videos with audio.

Thanks for that, I understand why you would consider a radar spoof as the culprit.

I fear this is one of these cases where we will only hear what they want us to hear, if it really was nothing, this report would have said that.

originally posted by: mbkennel

I'll put out there as a historical point that we now know thanks to declassification, that a significant fraction of 1960's UFO reports, which were officially deemed unexplained at the time, turned out to be tests and operations of U2, SR71, Spy satellite film retrieval, and likely additional programs..

Hasn't that been debunked as complete bollocks?


Link / Post

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: djz3ro
a reply to: vlawde

In one of the videos you can hear the pilot say to look at the AESA (radar), there's a whole fleet of them.

Small correction: whilst it sounds like he is saying AESA (Active Electronic Scanned Array), referring to the APG-73 (I think) radar, he is actually referring to the SA, or Situational Awareness display mode, which can combine sensor data from both the onboard radar, other aircraft and ships using LINK-16.