- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,930
- Reaction score
- 11,113
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.
Not as often as you might think
Example right here. The requestor, Brigader General Francis G. Schulgen was in fact assigned to (US Air Force, (having become a seperate service 5 days earlier they hadn't had time yet to change letter head or organizational charts and it would be the mid-50s before the public mentally accepted the service as a seperate entity) the Public Affairs Division. "Assigned" because he was already on track to retire about 8 months later (http://www.generals.dk/general/Schulgen/George_Francis/USA.html) and he was therefore the "Commanding General" listed since he was in fact in "command" of the division.
Public Affiars (https://www.publicaffairs.af.mil/) is the public 'face' of the Air Force and the official channel for interaction between the service, the public and the press. So the General in charge of Public Affairs wrote to the General in charge of Air Material Command for a statement and stance on these "UFO" sightings for disemniation to the public and press. Brigader General Nathan Twining head of the DIVISON that was Air Material Command was, within eight days of that memo assigned to the Alaska Air Command as its commander. A step down and to a place that at the time was NOT seen as the best of assignments. (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/105367/general-nathan-f-twining/)
:::SIgh::: No, in fact the US military would continue to face further and more major budget cuts when Truman was elected again in 1948. Truman had always prioritized domestic spending over anything else and further, while he 'favored' the "Big Stick" of Atomic Weapons and by default the Air Force since they were the only service that could deliver the weapons he still paid all military budget items LAST with whatever Federal funds were availalble. (The US could not attack Russia from the Continential US so the reverse was just as true) This policy would not shift until AFTER the Korean War had started. See attached graph.
Yes they did and because many of the reports were second and beyond hand exchanges many of the conclusions boiled down to unexplained, unknown, or indeterminant. Others were constrained by ongoing secrecy yes, (the Mantell Incident for example was likely the pilot chasing a high altitude balloon from Project Mogul which at the time was top secret). By 1969 the Air Force effort was useless due to interference and tampering by various "Civilian" UFO research and reporting groups who consistantly failed to follow proper procedure for witness statements and evidence/reporting cross-verification. Why keep something going when you can't get good data and are not even among the top three "organizations" someone thinks to contact?
It was litterally to the point where the witness' and reporters outside the military were activily hostile and uncooperative with Air Force investigators. Especially if the investigators didn't act like they fully accepted whatever the witness said and asked questions outside of the witness exeperiance.
Randy
What are you trying to say? That the US military is not a fully integrated and hemogneous organiztion that treats everyone and all things the same? That Squids, Jarheads, Wingnuts/ChairForce and GroPo's are not all the same in training, mindset and outlook?
Randy
So you're discounting what those present have said and even the official description of the incident indicate some rather odd behaviour for a controlled artificial object.
What does the National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA) have to do with the disscussion?
Randy
And the difference between then and now is no difference.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,930
- Reaction score
- 11,113
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,930
- Reaction score
- 11,113
What are you trying to say? That the US military is not a fully integrated and hemogneous organiztion that treats everyone and all things the same? That Squids, Jarheads, Wingnuts/ChairForce and GroPo's are not all the same in training, mindset and outlook?
Randy
I'm not "trying" to say anything. I AM saying the incidents talked about on the podcast were USN.
Not as often as you might think
Example right here. The requestor, Brigader General Francis G. Schulgen was in fact assigned to (US Air Force, (having become a seperate service 5 days earlier they hadn't had time yet to change letter head or organizational charts and it would be the mid-50s before the public mentally accepted the service as a seperate entity) the Public Affairs Division. "Assigned" because he was already on track to retire about 8 months later (http://www.generals.dk/general/Schulgen/George_Francis/USA.html) and he was therefore the "Commanding General" listed since he was in fact in "command" of the division.
Public Affiars (https://www.publicaffairs.af.mil/) is the public 'face' of the Air Force and the official channel for interaction between the service, the public and the press. So the General in charge of Public Affairs wrote to the General in charge of Air Material Command for a statement and stance on these "UFO" sightings for disemniation to the public and press. Brigader General Nathan Twining head of the DIVISON that was Air Material Command was, within eight days of that memo assigned to the Alaska Air Command as its commander. A step down and to a place that at the time was NOT seen as the best of assignments. (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/105367/general-nathan-f-twining/)
:::SIgh::: No, in fact the US military would continue to face further and more major budget cuts when Truman was elected again in 1948. Truman had always prioritized domestic spending over anything else and further, while he 'favored' the "Big Stick" of Atomic Weapons and by default the Air Force since they were the only service that could deliver the weapons he still paid all military budget items LAST with whatever Federal funds were availalble. (The US could not attack Russia from the Continential US so the reverse was just as true) This policy would not shift until AFTER the Korean War had started. See attached graph.
Yes they did and because many of the reports were second and beyond hand exchanges many of the conclusions boiled down to unexplained, unknown, or indeterminant. Others were constrained by ongoing secrecy yes, (the Mantell Incident for example was likely the pilot chasing a high altitude balloon from Project Mogul which at the time was top secret). By 1969 the Air Force effort was useless due to interference and tampering by various "Civilian" UFO research and reporting groups who consistantly failed to follow proper procedure for witness statements and evidence/reporting cross-verification. Why keep something going when you can't get good data and are not even among the top three "organizations" someone thinks to contact?
It was litterally to the point where the witness' and reporters outside the military were activily hostile and uncooperative with Air Force investigators. Especially if the investigators didn't act like they fully accepted whatever the witness said and asked questions outside of the witness exeperiance.
Randy
Some good information there, thank you. The rest was not helpful at all. The early consensus was that these were Russian aircraft. They were being used for reconnaissance because in the no money world of May 1946, the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) program started, and funding appeared in 1947.
The Air Force wanted a confused public out there. People formed small investigative groups because they were not getting good, to them, reasonable answers from the Air Force. I'm not talking about lights in the sky or vague shapes or some meteor. I'm referring to solid metallic objects of circular shape. If I saw that and the Air Force came back with "you only saw what you think you saw, or your brain made it up as it went along," I would be hostile as well. And by that I mean hostile to people not examining it at the level AMC examined it. It makes no sense to tell me some guy was about to be shipped of to Alaska - deal with the issue and forget about trivia.
What was worse were incidents inside the military itself. The US was using radar picket ships in the Atlantic and Pacific while trying to get continental radars up. Airborne reconnaissance aircraft were becoming more numerous over the US. What were they looking for? Nothing? Pilots reporting close visual contact with clear visibility were constrained by Espionage laws in place. They reported and were told not to talk about it.
And I was making a joke as you well know
Actually that's pretty telling since the Air Force likely would have NEVER released anything because they don't have to. The Navy on the other hand did to address the discussion. In the second NEPA was things like the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental laws and wasn't enacted till 1970 so what does that have to do with 1947?
Your welcome
Amazingly none of those funds went to any military service because at the time, (and this is where history helps) ALL Atomic and Nuclear work was done by the Atomic Energy Commission incuding all work on nuclear weapons design and construction. The 'study' goals of NEPA amounted to a few thousand dollars since it didn't have priority over warhead development, (recall it was the Air Force AND Atomic Weapons that got the funding) and it remained that way till NEPA transitioned to ANP (Aircraft Nuclear Power)
Quite the opposite effect from also then organizing and putting into place a huge 'air' observer corps no?
Close. What happened is the Air Force said "could you have seen" and then went on to question your eyesight, your mental factilties and your 'honor' about what you had seen you get mad and don't talk the them anymore. Then again, (strangly enough) using the interogation techninques that were used in the war on both allied and enemy personnel, (your gathering intelligence from unreliable and often stressed humans, you question EVERYTHING as a matter of course) didn't work well with civilians duiring peace-time. Who'd a thunk?
So people who were convinced that UFOs were "solid metallic objects of circular shape" when the Air Force did not immediatly and publicly acknowledge these "facts" went out and found like minded individuals who DID believe those same "facts" and began to "investigate" sightings by believing everthing someone told them. UFO "research" hasn't significantly changed since and the problem is there IS 'something' out there.
Since the military had only vague notions of what they were looking for, and the equipment was so primitive every sighting was suspecious of course, but to paraphrase Scotty the more complex you make it the easier it is to break it. Radar pickets carried larger radars which let them see further than the smaller warship mounted sets. See futher and have more warning of a threat and carries have always been threatened by enemy air assests. (And those pickets were usually with the fleet not on coastal patrol that didn't get going till after the Korean war in ernest when the military budget went up)
And those 'espionage' laws weren't what prevented the pilots from talking it was being asked by authority in a time when authority was highly trusted NOT to talk about something until the authority finished investigating the report. Standard procedure but for all that a good number would still turn around and tell anyone who'd listen what they saw and so why should authority continue to stay in contact with them? So they never get an 'answer' and form their own.
Randy
A very strange reply. What happened to the records of the Ground Observer Corps? How many of the Ground Observer Corps wrote even "My Sightings as a Member of the Ground Observer Corps"? Answer. None. Only a vague idea of what they were looking for? False.
19 Aug 46 - (S) Outgoing War Dept classified msg "To: CG PACUSA Tokyo Japan Reurad A 97381 from GOMGENAIR. Based on reports which are to date insufficient and inconclusive, the following estimates are submitted: A. They appear to be guided missiles with turbo jet or ram jet engines and similar to an enlarged V-1. If the missiles achieve supersonic speed, the wings would have to be smaller and shorter than those on the V-1, probably resembling an A-9 missile. B. Peenemünde is the most likely source, with the Aland Islands, Porkkala Area of Finland, and Dago Islands, Esthonia [sic], as possible launching sites or observation stations. In general, the launchings are reportedly from the North German coast aimed Northward along the Baltic. C. A 700 mile radius has been reported. Performance definitely in excess of 100 miles. D. Accuracy is not known, but long range control of direction and propulsion, long range homing on cities, and probable short range homing have been reported. E. Natural gas has been reportedly used as fuel, although multiple step rocket propulsion also may be in use. Demolition by explosion or burning charge seems to be indicated. V-3 and V-4 have been reported in these tests, although the definite identity of V-3 and V-4 not known. End. ORIGINATOR: AAF / DISTRIBUTION: ID, P&O, R&D"
22 Aug 46 - Reuters reports on Soviet development of "new and very powerful rocket -- the German V-4" and that "the Russians were continuing German experiments"
22 Aug 46 - NYTimes, p 2: "Russia Said To Make V-Weapons In Zone" - "Berlin, Aug 21 (Reuter) - Russian and German technicians are manufacturing new V weapons in a number of former German arms plants that are working at the full level of their present capacity, well documented and extremely reliable information reaching Berlin from the Soviet occupation zone said today. Evidence has been provided that the Russians are engaged in the production of heavy armaments, special jet aircraft, rocket fuels for V weapons and U-boat and torpedo components in at least ten special factories in several parts of Russian-occupied Germany. Although the Russians do not at present permit Allied investigation of activity inside the closed guarded arms factories in the Russian occupied areas it has been learned that production of components of advanced V weapons is going ahead in such factories as Siemens and Telefunken in Berlin, Nieder-Sachsenwerke at Wolfsleben and the Klein-Bodungen factory, all of which are subsidiaries of the big Bleich-Roeder [sic] concern. In the Magdeburg plant of the Krupps combine the Russians are producing heavy armament equipment that is being shipped into Soviet Russia, it was stated. Special aircraft fuels for jet engines are being produced in the giant Leuna oil plant near Merseburg in Saxony, but production is believed to be on a comparatively small scale, it was added."
19 Aug 46 - (S) Outgoing War Dept classified msg "To: CG PACUSA Tokyo Japan Reurad A 97381 from GOMGENAIR. Based on reports which are to date insufficient and inconclusive, the following estimates are submitted: A. They appear to be guided missiles with turbo jet or ram jet engines and similar to an enlarged V-1. If the missiles achieve supersonic speed, the wings would have to be smaller and shorter than those on the V-1, probably resembling an A-9 missile. B. Peenemünde is the most likely source, with the Aland Islands, Porkkala Area of Finland, and Dago Islands, Esthonia [sic], as possible launching sites or observation stations. In general, the launchings are reportedly from the North German coast aimed Northward along the Baltic. C. A 700 mile radius has been reported. Performance definitely in excess of 100 miles. D. Accuracy is not known, but long range control of direction and propulsion, long range homing on cities, and probable short range homing have been reported. E. Natural gas has been reportedly used as fuel, although multiple step rocket propulsion also may be in use. Demolition by explosion or burning charge seems to be indicated. V-3 and V-4 have been reported in these tests, although the definite identity of V-3 and V-4 not known. End. ORIGINATOR: AAF / DISTRIBUTION: ID, P&O, R&D"
22 Aug 46 - Reuters reports on Soviet development of "new and very powerful rocket -- the German V-4" and that "the Russians were continuing German experiments"
22 Aug 46 - NYTimes, p 2: "Russia Said To Make V-Weapons In Zone" - "Berlin, Aug 21 (Reuter) - Russian and German technicians are manufacturing new V weapons in a number of former German arms plants that are working at the full level of their present capacity, well documented and extremely reliable information reaching Berlin from the Soviet occupation zone said today. Evidence has been provided that the Russians are engaged in the production of heavy armaments, special jet aircraft, rocket fuels for V weapons and U-boat and torpedo components in at least ten special factories in several parts of Russian-occupied Germany. Although the Russians do not at present permit Allied investigation of activity inside the closed guarded arms factories in the Russian occupied areas it has been learned that production of components of advanced V weapons is going ahead in such factories as Siemens and Telefunken in Berlin, Nieder-Sachsenwerke at Wolfsleben and the Klein-Bodungen factory, all of which are subsidiaries of the big Bleich-Roeder [sic] concern. In the Magdeburg plant of the Krupps combine the Russians are producing heavy armament equipment that is being shipped into Soviet Russia, it was stated. Special aircraft fuels for jet engines are being produced in the giant Leuna oil plant near Merseburg in Saxony, but production is believed to be on a comparatively small scale, it was added."
Did you even read the article?A different perspective on this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?
The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary.
The Pentagon’s UFOs: How a Multimedia Entertainment Company Created a UFO News Story
Countless media outlets are proclaiming that the US Defense Department has “disclosed UFOs,” or has “acknowledged” that they exist. How much of that is true? Very little!www.skeptic.com
That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
It's not a moon landing was faked site it's actually an anti conspiracy site.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,930
- Reaction score
- 11,113
I did read the article. How else would I have come to a conclusion?Did you even read the article?A different perspective on this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?
The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary.
The Pentagon’s UFOs: How a Multimedia Entertainment Company Created a UFO News Story
Countless media outlets are proclaiming that the US Defense Department has “disclosed UFOs,” or has “acknowledged” that they exist. How much of that is true? Very little!
That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
It's not a moon landing was faked site it's actually an anti conspiracy site.
But… How can you compare the veracity of the Moon landing to the veracity the Tictac story ?
Questioning the veracity of the Moon landing is clearly stupid i agree, it’s a known Historical fact.
But questioning the Tictac story is normal given no one know exactly what it was…
I don’t see the logic here.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,930
- Reaction score
- 11,113
I did not do that. I'm saying that when I read that site it was like reading one of those, "moon landing was faked" sites. Maybe it was their style or the plethora of instances of stating speculation as fact. I would not have been surprised at all to see, "9/11 was an inside job" on there.
Cant we just lock this thread and move on?
Trolling right? Because the article and site are exactly the opposite of what you're saying you 'read' there. They actually quote the sources used in the speculation and all whereas conspiricy sites pride themselves on not doing so as "proof" they are right.
Randy
Speaking of a strange reply....
Records of the Ground Observer Corps, 1951-1958 | WorldCat.org
Records relating to the activities of groups of civilian volunteers who were to cooperate with the U.S. Air Force in detection of enemy aircraft. Included are reports and correspondence, primarily wit
www.worldcat.org
Written accounts?
And they were briefed on general characteristics of known aircraft and sent out to look the sky. There were millions of reports and a lot less resources to actually do anything with the information till after 1950 by which time radar was replacing them.
It was a plausible idea at the time but keep in mind that no one every found much in the way of remains or wreckage unlike the actual German test articles which made the idea questionable. Then it became clear from reports inside the zone that the test ranges were in fact NOT being used and they'd been stripped and sent back to Russia proper within months of the end of the War. Something that should be rather 'telling' is that a the time Western intelligince was well aware that neither the V3 or V4 were rocket or missile weapons in any case o the 'designation' useage in the message should indicate a low level source that in fact did NOT known better. This correlated with most of the reporting of the 'ghost rockets' sightings.
Something to keep in mind is that during that period the Allies were desperatly trying to keep America insterested in Europe affairs as it was feared we'd slip back into isolationism despite our wartime stance. Given the rather open nature of Truman's policy, down to the first use of Atomic Weapons, (which would have to be staged in Europe and likely dropped on Europe) and deep and rapid demobilization and down-sizing of the US military it was I'd say rightly feared that without a continious 'threat' the US took seriously that we might simply pack up and go home as soon as possible and ignore Europes problems.
Randy
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,726
- Reaction score
- 15,097
This sounds like more nonsense from this fellow and his patents. Heck knows why the navy are attaching their name to them. When you look at the article you’ll see why I have placed it in this thread.
www.thedrive.com
Scientist Behind The Navy's "UFO Patents" Has Now Filed One For A Compact Fusion Reactor
The latest in a series of bizarre Navy patents isn't just for a revolutionary reactor that could power cities, but also potentially a craft.
www.thedrive.com
The motivation is simple. From the site posted: "While attempting to dig up as much information as possible about the inventor and these patents, I came across some supplemental documents in the USPTO’s databases that seem to imply that Navy leadership knows that these technologies are actually feasible – or that they want us or someone else to think that they are."
The Navy has full control over what gets released. I don't believe in leaks.
The Navy has full control over what gets released. I don't believe in leaks.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,726
- Reaction score
- 15,097
But I can’t see many countries falling for such an obvious ruse.
I just skimmed the article but I'll point out that the Navy like any other government agency has an arrangment with people who work for it to allow them to publish and apply for patents on things they work on "officially". The majority of time this isn't an issue but I suspect this is one of those 'other' times since we should all be aware that it is quite possible to get a patent for something the doesn't work or isn't really feasible. Surprising I know.
See getting a patent application number is one way scammers and con artists operate since you get those just by applying for a patent and as long as you avoid certain "keywords" the system has to process it and assign an appliction number whether it's eventually rejected or granted. By the same token you can get a patent granted for something that has no chance of (currently) working but can, in theory, work or be made workable at a later date.
(I can't post an example because they were finally taken down when the patent's ran out a few years ago but one I loved was the "Plasma powered, hovering anti-missile and assault tower system" patent. An honest to god fusion powered, plasma firing, fusion thruster hovering combat tower design with beutiful detail drawings of plasmal conduits and internal and external structure which exactly a one paragraph 'description' of how it would work. The description pretty much said should anyone every develop working fusion that prouduces plasma THIS is my concept for what to do with it" and that was apperantly patentable....)
The UFO and fusion reactor patents at first glance seem plausible if any of the underlying assumptions work, whether those assumptions are valid or not aren't really applicable IF rest of the patent hold together in a coherent manner. As to the Navy supporting it because they think "China is working on it" I'd say that's probably a boiler plate response. Keep in mind that it doesn't really matter IF this works at this point and time in that if it DOES work then everything the Navy (and the rest of the military and world) currently has is obsolete immditaly.
More likely is that some of mentioned tech does actually have possible uses and they are burying it in technobabble.
For example:
"if you can a) create a room temperature superconductor capable of storing an incredibly high amount of energy and b) get the energy field created by that superconductor moving at incredibly high speeds around or within the craft, you can create a polarized energy vacuum around it which allows it to basically ignore the energy of the air or water around it, thereby removing its own inertia and mass from the equation."
Obviously the room-temperature superconductor capable of storing a large amount of energy is a workable concept. A "moving energy field" is borderline but potentially plausible. The phrase "polarized energy vacuum" is total nonsense as is it having the "effect" of ignoring physics, inertia and mass and that's been proven to not work. So I'm pretty sure a careful examination of the whole patent(s) will reveal a few gems obscured by the rest but in general it's a smoke screen not an attempt to 'reveal' anything. In general even with an official Navy letter supporting this any scientist or intelligece agency would have quickly rejected and tossed this in the trash becauseits so silly and obviously crap. Now they're going to go back and take a longer look at this and the others BECAUSE of the attention. Not to see if we've discovered anti-gravity and/or "energy vacuum" but because the Navy was obviously trying to hide something in these and what might that be?
In fact I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you won't see anymore patents out of this guy because thanks to the media coverage he been 'tagged' for inetlligence purposes. Which technically means this worked if it was aimed at being disinformation because someone is going to waste time trying to make sense of it and find something in it. But if its got 'real' tech in it this will be too much attention and if it's disinformation then the over-scrutiny by the media and other sources is (has actually) already made it ineffective.
Randy
See getting a patent application number is one way scammers and con artists operate since you get those just by applying for a patent and as long as you avoid certain "keywords" the system has to process it and assign an appliction number whether it's eventually rejected or granted. By the same token you can get a patent granted for something that has no chance of (currently) working but can, in theory, work or be made workable at a later date.
(I can't post an example because they were finally taken down when the patent's ran out a few years ago but one I loved was the "Plasma powered, hovering anti-missile and assault tower system" patent. An honest to god fusion powered, plasma firing, fusion thruster hovering combat tower design with beutiful detail drawings of plasmal conduits and internal and external structure which exactly a one paragraph 'description' of how it would work. The description pretty much said should anyone every develop working fusion that prouduces plasma THIS is my concept for what to do with it" and that was apperantly patentable....)
The UFO and fusion reactor patents at first glance seem plausible if any of the underlying assumptions work, whether those assumptions are valid or not aren't really applicable IF rest of the patent hold together in a coherent manner. As to the Navy supporting it because they think "China is working on it" I'd say that's probably a boiler plate response. Keep in mind that it doesn't really matter IF this works at this point and time in that if it DOES work then everything the Navy (and the rest of the military and world) currently has is obsolete immditaly.
More likely is that some of mentioned tech does actually have possible uses and they are burying it in technobabble.
For example:
"if you can a) create a room temperature superconductor capable of storing an incredibly high amount of energy and b) get the energy field created by that superconductor moving at incredibly high speeds around or within the craft, you can create a polarized energy vacuum around it which allows it to basically ignore the energy of the air or water around it, thereby removing its own inertia and mass from the equation."
Obviously the room-temperature superconductor capable of storing a large amount of energy is a workable concept. A "moving energy field" is borderline but potentially plausible. The phrase "polarized energy vacuum" is total nonsense as is it having the "effect" of ignoring physics, inertia and mass and that's been proven to not work. So I'm pretty sure a careful examination of the whole patent(s) will reveal a few gems obscured by the rest but in general it's a smoke screen not an attempt to 'reveal' anything. In general even with an official Navy letter supporting this any scientist or intelligece agency would have quickly rejected and tossed this in the trash becauseits so silly and obviously crap. Now they're going to go back and take a longer look at this and the others BECAUSE of the attention. Not to see if we've discovered anti-gravity and/or "energy vacuum" but because the Navy was obviously trying to hide something in these and what might that be?
In fact I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you won't see anymore patents out of this guy because thanks to the media coverage he been 'tagged' for inetlligence purposes. Which technically means this worked if it was aimed at being disinformation because someone is going to waste time trying to make sense of it and find something in it. But if its got 'real' tech in it this will be too much attention and if it's disinformation then the over-scrutiny by the media and other sources is (has actually) already made it ineffective.
Randy
- Joined
- 5 May 2007
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 385
I wade into these waters with extreme hesitation.
It would seem the aforementioned videos have now been officially declassified by the Department of Defense.
ABC News - April 27, 2020 - Pentagon declassifies Navy videos that purportedly show UFOs
This subject is also discussed in the thread below, started by Sferrin in December 2017:
Secret Project Forums - US DoD AATIP program 2009-2012 - In search of UFO/UFP
I'd ask the moderators to place this post where it is deemed appropriate.
Given the reported flight characteristics of the craft caught on video, I'm reminded of this circa-1962 Ryan Aerospace film posted to YouTube by the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM), that I shared here on the forum in October 2016 (Secret Project Forums - Aero-Electric Propulsion - Ryan Aerospace - Vjekoslav Gradecak). Here it is below:
In April 1965, Vjekoslav Gradecak was granted U.S. Patent No. 3,177,654 for an "Electric Aerospace Propulsion System" (linked at hyperlink and attached to this post). Might this be a relation to, or the nascent beginnings of, what was captured on these Navy videos?
The patent text states, "The primary object of this invention, therefore, is to provide a propulsion system for enabling controlled flight in the atmosphere, continuing into space without changing the basic operation of the system and achieving extended space flight." Watching the aforementioned film and reading the attached patent became all that much more intriguing, in light of the Navy videos and the reports of these craft captured in them operating from sea level all the way up to and beyond 80,000-ft in altitude.
I make no claim that this is the answer to what is going on, but others on the forum may find the posted film and patent of interest.
It would seem the aforementioned videos have now been officially declassified by the Department of Defense.
ABC News - April 27, 2020 - Pentagon declassifies Navy videos that purportedly show UFOs
This subject is also discussed in the thread below, started by Sferrin in December 2017:
Secret Project Forums - US DoD AATIP program 2009-2012 - In search of UFO/UFP
I'd ask the moderators to place this post where it is deemed appropriate.
Given the reported flight characteristics of the craft caught on video, I'm reminded of this circa-1962 Ryan Aerospace film posted to YouTube by the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM), that I shared here on the forum in October 2016 (Secret Project Forums - Aero-Electric Propulsion - Ryan Aerospace - Vjekoslav Gradecak). Here it is below:
The patent text states, "The primary object of this invention, therefore, is to provide a propulsion system for enabling controlled flight in the atmosphere, continuing into space without changing the basic operation of the system and achieving extended space flight." Watching the aforementioned film and reading the attached patent became all that much more intriguing, in light of the Navy videos and the reports of these craft captured in them operating from sea level all the way up to and beyond 80,000-ft in altitude.
I make no claim that this is the answer to what is going on, but others on the forum may find the posted film and patent of interest.
In_A_Dream
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2019
- Messages
- 616
- Reaction score
- 552
In the spirit of speculation, you have to consider major advances from the past and how they've changed our life (e.g. nuclear energy). It isn't a stretch to think that our predominantly infinite black budgets (or variants of) have produced a breakthrough in physics that the general public isn't aware of. It's been how many years since the Trinity Test? Disruptive technologies are a thing, and sometimes, too much of a thing.
Wanting a thing, hoping for a thing, doesn't mean a thing.
Breakthrough in physics? I'll believe it when it's something more than a blur on a screen. Until then it's Balloon Boy 2.0.
Breakthrough in physics? I'll believe it when it's something more than a blur on a screen. Until then it's Balloon Boy 2.0.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,026
- Reaction score
- 9,421
life is stranger than fiction...
This pattern of hanging out what appears to be disclosure followed by "it's not disclosure" has been going on for decades. I have been studying this subject for 40 years and the only consistent pattern is denial and somewhat abusive denial as if civilians who see such things are the worst. I expect this to continue.
Meanwhile, as more material is declassified, it is only becoming more clear that disruptive technologies went further along in development.
Meanwhile, as more material is declassified, it is only becoming more clear that disruptive technologies went further along in development.
In_A_Dream
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 3 June 2019
- Messages
- 616
- Reaction score
- 552
From a practical stand point, it's better than nothing. Project Blue Book basically said the same thing without saying it and Hynek later supported that. I don't even think it's the military's call on this considering the national security implications (terrestrial & non-terrestrial).
At any rate, you have 100s of billions of dollars having been dumped into bleeding edge R&D (classified, academic, etc) since World War 2 ended. It's been how long since the Manhattan Project? It's safe to say there's a plethora of avenues science has gone down that won't see the light of day for a while... which is sad because some of these advancements could proven necessary for the survival of the human race and our planet.
At any rate, you have 100s of billions of dollars having been dumped into bleeding edge R&D (classified, academic, etc) since World War 2 ended. It's been how long since the Manhattan Project? It's safe to say there's a plethora of avenues science has gone down that won't see the light of day for a while... which is sad because some of these advancements could proven necessary for the survival of the human race and our planet.
Putting humans on other planets means the same problems will crop up. "You want my dirt? You will have to fight me to get it." As the colonization of some distant world creates similar problems to what we've seen on earth.
Secret is secret. That's all there is to it. Those who live and work in the 'black' world can't say a thing.
Hynek was there from the beginning. When Project Saucer was changed to Project Sign. Ed Ruppelt had very little to say about Blue Book in his book. And very little credible anything after that. Take Jacques Vallee, a very good writer of speculation. J Allen Hynek just added another layer of mythology, and Swamp Gas. A rare light show where gas from rotting vegetable matter in a swamp ignites for a brief moment. Is that a real or fake explanation for a UFO sighting?
Secret is secret. That's all there is to it. Those who live and work in the 'black' world can't say a thing.
Hynek was there from the beginning. When Project Saucer was changed to Project Sign. Ed Ruppelt had very little to say about Blue Book in his book. And very little credible anything after that. Take Jacques Vallee, a very good writer of speculation. J Allen Hynek just added another layer of mythology, and Swamp Gas. A rare light show where gas from rotting vegetable matter in a swamp ignites for a brief moment. Is that a real or fake explanation for a UFO sighting?
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 129
Paco Chierici, who was a former squadron mate of Dave Fravor and wrote the original Fightersweep article about his sighting, gives some background on how it came about:
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,726
- Reaction score
- 15,097
Are people really saying the US military possess vehicles are advanced as the so called black triangles?
I find that really hard to credit. Also people have been reporting these things for decades now.
I find that really hard to credit. Also people have been reporting these things for decades now.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,026
- Reaction score
- 9,421
Thunderf00t second strike -
- Joined
- 27 April 2008
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 129
Problem with this one - at 32:32 he is making the point that the video doesn’t match Fravors description of circling. However if he had properly read or watched the original account he would realise that Fravors jet didn’t have a FLIR mounted: the video is from a later flight.
Personally I don’t think Fravor is misrepresenting what he saw, it’s just that I don’t think it’s what he thinks it was...
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,726
- Reaction score
- 15,097
It’s been pointed out elsewhere that this person has a credibility issue in that he doesn’t believe that Space X reuses their rockets.
I have been studying this subject for a long time. What's the issue with black triangles? In the 1950s, you either built aircraft with no straight lines or triangles. Consider: The USAF, and US Navy, have unilateral control over all information, including alleged performance.
Similar threads
-
-
CNO Greenert Warns Congress of Fighter Shortfall, Hornet Line to Close 2017
- Started by Triton
- Replies: 1
-
-
South Korea successfully conducts third test flight of solid-fuel space rocket- Started by Flyaway
- Replies: 0
-
