“Extreme Acceleration by UAPs” Event Found in NASA's Internal UFO Communications

As part of his continued hunt for snippets of information John Greenewald has been FOIA requesting internal communications at NASA , one recent file he received is an internal e-mail inviting the recipient to a virtual none public event happening on the 6th October2020 where the invited , including Christopher Mellon , would be discussing Extreme Acceleration by UAPs following a talk given by Robert Powel exploring relevant cases.

There is no contact information on STA’s website, but The Black Vault reached out to Powell and Mellon for comment on the 2020 event.

According to Powell, this was “not a public event.” In addition, he said , “There were 41 people at the presentation,” but declined to name any who attended nor would confirm if they were from the government or military. The only information he gave on the attendees was that they “…were not from the world of ufology.”

When Mellon was asked by The Black Vault for comment, only minimal information was received in return. The first response was that his “plans changed” insinuating that he did not attend the event. He also called the document a “nothing burger.”

The Black Vault followed up to confirm that he definitely did not attend, and if the introductory remarks were given by someone else, but Mellon only responded with, “…not ringing a bell.”
www.theblackvault.com...

I like the line in the e-mail that says "All our friends in propulsion will not want to miss this one !"
Link to E-Mail


Thanks again to the Black Vault , great work.

a reply to: gortex

The email states that during the event a creature named Robert will comment, among other relevant cases, on the Stephenville case.

I thought Stephenville incident was better known for the visual imagery, the beautiful fireworks the UFO played, the aerial maneuvers, but above all for the strange play of lights, rather than showing an extreme acceleration; at least they showed the usual that's all folks! farewell disappearing in a wink.

That is, Stephenville incident main feature was not the extreme acceleration, but the fact they played beautiful geometric games in the sky (which are now fully explained as a mid-air laser tech test performed by 4 fighters, F-16 if I remember correctly).

a reply to: Direne

That is, Stephenville incident main feature was not the extreme acceleration

I guess there's something in the radar data that shows extreme acceleration.

The MUFON report, entitled "Special Research Report Stephenville, Texas" was written by Glen Schulze and Ropert Powell. Shulze has radar experience from working at the White Sands Missile Range. Powell has a chemistry degree and has extensive experience with semiconductors from working for Advanced Micro Devices.
en.wikinews.org...

a reply to: gortex

TheBlackVault is a great site and John Greenewald is doing some great work.
To have been a fly on the wall in that meeting, we know that they have better quality footage of the recent videos that have been released and bet they were played at that meeting.

a reply to: Direne

"... a creature named Robert..."

You mean Robert Powell? The guy mentioned in the title of the email?

originally posted by: Foundryman
a reply to: Direne

"... a creature named Robert..."

You mean Robert Powell? The guy mentioned in the title of the email?

Robert Powell is a member of Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, so he's from the world of UFOlogy, and not a reliable source or analyst. He is co-author of a paper making numerous sciency-sounding claims but some of the analyses are severly flawed. The three videos released by the pentagon include one referred to as "FLIR" or "Tic-Tac" that TTSA claimed shows acceleration. Powell et al try to put numbers to the acceleration by analyzing positional data on the screen.

Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles

We see that Model 4, which describes the motion of the UAV as a constant acceleration to the left and away from the observer for the first 15 frames (approximately 0.53s) is the most probable solution with acceleration components of ax=−35.64±0.08g and az=67.04±0.18g for an overall acceleration of about 75.9±0.2g.

So there Powell claims an overall acceleration of 75.9 g!

However the acceleration analysis turns out to be entirely wrong because it doesn't account for the loss of target lock and once that is accounted for, there is no acceleration to speak of. That FLIR video is readily available and you can analyze it yourself to find it doesn't show any significant acceleration as Powell et al claim. I have done this and Mick West made a video explaining this:



The same paper also tried to calculate extreme acceleration of something the Princeton got on radar descending rapidly, which Kevin Day said the captain of the ship thought was an atmospheric phenomenon. So if the captain of the ship is correct and his explanation frankly sounds more plausible (and he's probably a lot more familiar with the systems on his ship), calculating the acceleration of some atmospheric anomaly in a radar system that nobody visually confirmed is just a form of mental masturbation.

Another example of Powell et al getting overly excited about anomalous radar data can be found in their description of Japan Air Lines Flight 1628 in 1986, where the FAA said the radar return in question was a "split radar image" which means a false radar return where nothing is really there. Then nothing really being there was confirmed by an Eastern flight going in the opposite direction, where they reported they could see the JAL 1628 plane, but no other traffic that JAL1628 had reported. So not only do we not have visual confirmation of the false radar return, but actually visual contradiction of it.

Radar alone is simply not reliable enough to be a good source for extraordinary acceleration claims without other forms of confirmation. The analysis by Powell et all also seems to overlook that the plane had its own radar (separate from the ground radar), and the plane's radar apparently only tracked a cloud not moving any faster than wind speed, and that the first officer thought that what they tracked on radar and what they saw were NOT the same thing. Yet the radar return in that case being a "split radar image" doesn't stop Powell et all from estimating the acceleration to be either 68 g or 84 g depending on which of his two speculative models one wants to adapt, but neither figure is reliable.

This is Powell et al's description of the radar return "switching sides":

The radar returns revealed that the large UAV stayed about 7.5mi away from the airplane, maintaining that distance as it bounced around the airplane occasionally changing position from one side of the airplane to the other within one 12s radar sweep [20,21] as illustrated in Figure 2A.

That description screams radar anomaly, exactly as the FAA reports it is, but Powell doesn't even seem to consider that possibility, instead calculating some absurd acceleration figures based on models which do not match what the crew visually observed (they didn't see the UFO change position from one side of the aircraft to the other within a 12s interval as the false radar returns suggested).

I would bet the farm no UAP did what Powell calculated it to do using those false radar returns, but if you similarly assume the false radar returns were real, I'm sure you too could calculate some amazing, though not real, accelerations. Woo-hoo!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh thanks! Now is clear to me. It happens gortex in his reply to my post inserted a quote where it is written The MUFON report, entitled "Special Research Report Stephenville, Texas" was written by Glen Schulze and Ropert Powell so I got confused between that Ropert and Robert.

I'm always fascinated by how humans can easily interpret that Ropert refers to Robert, yet how difficult some of them find interpreting electromagnetic propagation and so-called anaprop (anomalous propagation). But from what you describe this is not even close to an anaprop misinterpretation. It seems it all reduces to Mr. Powell not wanting to interpret the radar data in its due context.

John Greenewald has another NASA e-mail this time from last month , it was sent to NASA Administrator Bill Nelson with a couple of space shuttle AUP videos attached , in this 15 minute video John gives background on the e-mail and takes a look at the videos.

a reply to: gortex
There are a couple of interesting comments on that video page:

NASA FOIA Request Turns Up Two UFO Videos Sent to Administrator Bill Nelson
Allan Noble said: "Since when does some random spamming a government administrator with unsolicited blurry videos of uncertain provenance and to which he received no reply count as worthwhile of anybody's attention?"

Greenewald doesn't doubt they are genuine but he doesn't provide date or time information, that would be helpful in investigating any videos. Maybe the source didn't either but sometimes it almost seems like a conspiracy to hide the truth about when the video was actually made which might help explain what it shows. Maybe someone wants them to seem mysterious by concealing the origin timing.

The other comment might be a more correct identification of what the first video shows than the guess passed along to Greenewald he mentioned, the ISS, probably correct on the second video too:

MarkS said: "Isn't the first one just the end section of the Space Shuttle's robotic Canadarm? The second one looks just like ice crystals. I watch all the SpaceX launches and see things like this all the time."

I recorded a video of a UFO object. Strange flight characteristics.

you can see it at:


www.ittnnet.com...

a reply to: Nightstalker2010

I guess you can't make your own thread until you get 5 posts, but it's not hard to get 5 posts. It's more polite to make your own thread about your own UFO videos than to hijack a NASA thread with a topic that has nothing to do with NASA.

Anyway for the "objects" videos, the videos are only 30fps and it looks to me like you would need maybe 500 fps frame rate using a high speed camera to identify the objects.

For the fireworks video, I too had a mysterious object appear in my fireworks video. I assumed it was a drone but I don't have any way to confirm it, but it seemed to be "observing" or maybe photographing the fireworks from elevation, a view not available from the ground. Yours is a little different because it looks like it might be shining a light at times, illuminating the smoke, but a drone might be a possibility for yours too.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"Greenewald doesn't doubt they are genuine but he doesn't provide date or time information, that would be helpful in investigating any videos."

Such data is CRITICAL to any serious investigation, and without it, it's just a waste of time.