To The Stars Academy: Investigating the Unexplained

The shadow

The shadow knows!
I lost all respect for LMH when she declared the nazca mummy to be genuine. but that is a story for a different day
 
I lost all respect for LMH when she declared the nazca mummy to be genuine. but that is a story for a different day
Didn't know about that, but then I have pretty well been ignoring that end of the realm. In any case, it does not surprise me. Pretty sad though. Right up there with Knapp's idiotic blather about Lazar still having a stash of his imaginary substance.
 

Standingstones

Celestial
He's offered nothing in the form of verification, so it's just a guy saying things. I find it Very difficult to believe that some military research project leap-frogged ahead of all terrestrial physics and technology to the tune of a few centuries (at least), with no indications of the long and arduous process of discovery...development...and ultimately perfection of a form of technology totally alien to global civilization as we know it. If the Tic-Tac is human tech, then we have the capability to colonize other star systems right now....but instead of doing that, we're buzzing unsuspecting Navy battle groups with it...hmmm.

And even a cursory look into this guy throws up all kinds of red flags:

Mike Turber - facebook profile
Mike Turber

He calls himself "Editor-in-Chief" of "5X5 News," which is an awful YouTube channel with 267 subscribers:

5X5 NEWS YouTube channel
5X5 NEWS

Here's his latest "news segment" at his "5X5 News" YouTube channel - so awful...:

5X5 NEWS | Exclusive RAW Video | Aliens Launch Attack On Las Vegas!


Here's his Twitter account:

Mike Turber (74 followers)
Mike Turber (@Michaelturber) | Twitter

Here's his LinkedIn profile (WOW, Inc. no longer exists, and only had 4 followers when it folded):

Mike Turber CEO / President at WOW, INC. (not to be confused with "World of Warcraft" : )
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-turber-082342b/

So it seems to me that this guy is a nobody, who knows nothing more than we know, and he loves to adopt serious-sounding titles like "Editor-in-Chief" and "CEO/President" when he launches dreary little vanity projects that quickly wither on the vine. Claims are easy, but evidence is what counts. As a "news man" he should know this, haha.

Besides, how seriously would you take this guy after finding this featured public pic on his facebook page?

View attachment 8444

I love the bad tattoo.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
CRADA FAQ
November 15, 2019


1573790507967447aeceec64c0d7d4ac8ebcfc6878.png


Q: What is a CRADA?

A: A CRADA is a mechanism for cooperative work between a government agency and another agency, either internal to the government or external, non-government. CRADAs are not limited to the U.S. Army Research Laboratory and are widely used across various government R&D agencies and facilities. A CRADA brings together researchers for cooperative projects between the agency and its chosen partner without an exchange of funds, property, or other exchanges that would otherwise require a contract. Traditionally, CRADAs are used for out-of-the-box projects or leading-edge technologies where both parties are interested in conducting research together for mutually beneficial information or investigatory benefit. An example of a CRADA that the U.S. Army has previously created is with General Motors, which focused on Fuel Cell research. The U.S. Army was interested in General Motors’ Fuel Cell technologies and General Motors was interested in the Army’s experience with off-road vehicles and operation. Therefore, the CRADA between the two organizations afforded the opportunity to investigate the use of Fuel Cells for rugged, austere, off-road environments, providing notable insights that both General Motors and the U.S. Army benefited from.


Q: What are the benefits of a CRADA?

A: CRADAs enable the U.S. Government and its scientists and engineers the opportunity for R&D of new leading-edge, disruptive and transformational technologies with minimal risk. If at any point during the CRADA agreement, either To The Stars Academy or the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command determines that the collaborative research isn't yielding the results or analysis that was initially anticipated, either can cancel the partnership without spending further resources. Additionally, through the CRADA, To The Stars Academy receives access to the U.S. Government’s leading-edge resources that a start-up of its size wouldn’t otherwise have access to. This includes highly skilled scientists, specialists and high-caliber laboratories that can accelerate and widen the scope of the testing and analysis required for the ADAM Project.


Q: How did To The Stars Academy secure a CRADA deal with the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command? What specifically was the U.S. Army interested in researching from To The Stars Academy that resulted in the creation of the CRADA?

A: The credentials of the people on the To The Stars Academy team who articulated the initial analysis of the materials is what caught the U.S. Army team's attention. To The Stars Academy team members are serious industry professionals with respected backgrounds in industry, materials science, and defense work. The U.S. Army approached To The Stars Academy in search of additional information about mechanical and electro-magnetic (EM) metamaterials and their Camouflage, Concealment, Deception and Obscuration (CCDO) capabilities, as well as creating a collaborative partnership to investigate secure quantum communications. After several meetings, the U.S. Army decided to seek a collaborative partnership with To The Stars Academy in the form of a CRADA.


Q: Will To The Stars Academy pay the U.S. Army for the use of their facilities?

A: There is no financial compensation to the U.S. Army for the use of their facilities. Similarly, To The Stars Academy will not be financially compensated for the use of their materials.


Q: Is To The Stars Academy’s recent partnership with TruClear and its projection/holographic technology connected to the CRADA?

A: TruClear will play a role in the CRADA, but the specific scope is yet to be defined. To The Stars Academy’s primary goal is to accelerate its R&D efforts through strategic partnerships, both within the government sector and with independent organizations, that will broaden the access to important resources such as skilled scientists and specialists who have access to high-caliber laboratories.


Q: Will To The Stars Academy’s relationship with the U.S. Government and the military on its R&D efforts create greater transparency around the findings of the research?

A: From To The Stars Academy’s perspective, this relationship signals unprecedented transparency and willingness to engage in the topic from a scientific perspective, while bridging the expertise from private and government sectors.

To The Stars Academy has been transparent and vocal since its inception about the fact that a cooperative relationship with both the U.S. Government and private industry is essential to the success and forward movement of its steadfast mission. As a technology leader, the U.S. Government can provide exceptional resources to accelerate testing and analysis that otherwise would be cost-prohibitive to a start-up the size of To The Stars Academy.

The U.S. Army's positive response to the high-profile nature of this agreement and To The Stars Academy’s mutual approval to publicly release the details of the CRADA displays the willingness and desire to be transparent with the public. This follows suit with the various public statements that To The Stars Academy’s partners within the U.S. Government have released in the past 24 months, after To The Stars Academy kicked off its educational efforts on behalf of its public benefit mission.

To The Stars Academy’s efforts also include documenting its work on History's TV series Unidentified: Inside America's UFO Investigation, which is currently being broadcast around the world, with plans to go more in-depth on the subject matter in season two.


Q: Is To The Stars Academy aiming to be a defense contractor?

A: To The Stars Academy is the first organization of its kind and is forging its own unique path in the realm of scientific phenomena and metamaterials research. Its research presents endless possibilities around potential future discoveries and the resulting applications for various uses. For example, materials science innovation made through R&D contracts similar to the CRADA during the Space Race alone resulted in thousands of breakthrough commercial products and created entirely new industries. Additionally, To The Stars Academy views the CRADA as an opportunity to improve the survivability of the brave men and women in uniform, as well as to significantly reduce the mass of armored vehicles.


Q: Where was To The Stars Academy’s material of interest obtained from?

A: To The Stars Academy has acquired material from various sources and does not comment on the specifics of its origin. Although, there are various claims around the origin of certain specimens that To The Stars Academy can’t substantiate, the CRADA will enable the organization to widen the scope of its research in order to verify other important characteristics and potential capabilities of its metamaterials. The organization continues to pursue material from a variety of sources including private and government sources.


Q: Which materials/technologies does To The Stars Academy currently have in hand and which ones are mostly still in the theoretical/research phase?

A: The maturity of the technologies in development by To The Stars Academy vary from that of purely theoretical to demonstrated capabilities. The active camouflage technology is an example of a very mature capability that builds off of existing systems. The secure quantum communications system has had laboratory demonstration of the physics principle and now the development will focus on transitioning the design to meet operational needs for bandwidth, waveforms, and hardware integration. The advanced material studies are still in theoretical investigation and experimentation phases, but provide the high payoff of increased survivability by significantly reducing the mass of armored vehicles.


Q: Do the active camouflage technologies that To The Stars Academy refers to rely on metamaterials?

A: The camouflage technology To The Stars Academy refers to has to do with an existing capability that is not connected with metamaterials. However, the organization believes that the research of its metamaterials could offer a similar capability down the road, but through a completely different mechanism.


Q: What other transformational technologies does the U.S. Army hope to work on with To The Stars Academy?

A: Neither organizations can provide this information at this time, as their main goal currently is to gather valuable insight and analysis on metamaterials through the CRADA.


Q: On a broader scale, can any company come in and create a CRADA to work within the U.S. Army Research Laboratory?

A: CRADAs can be created with any external entity within the limits of the law and reason, and when there's interest for both parties to do so. The U.S. Army forms CRADAs based on their consideration of the cost in terms of time and resources and the potential value of the research results that are anticipated from the CRADA.

.
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
According to one UFO propulsion theory, that I take seriously, UFOs can only reduce gravitational and inertial forces to zero, but they can not actually bend space-time. That means that UFOs still need to use reactive propulsion and 'launch' themselves on ballistic trajectories. There is actually a strange bias in timing of UFO events, that UFO arrivals coincide with phases of the Moon.
Is gravitation field propulsion with anti gravity when near the planet surface a better fit to observation?
Assuming a spherical field, the power requirement will cube with size, and smaller probes will likely have a fraction of the power requirements.
Reports of radiation burns might suggest cruder anti gravity generates EM reaching into the gamma, or perhaps that occurs with the transition from anti gravity to gravitational field propulsion?
 
I think we could all better understand the significance of the stunning performance characteristics of the Tic-Tac objects reported in the USS Nimitz CSG incidents by looking at a quick analysis of their interstellar spaceflight capabilities. So I crunched the numbers to demonstrate the transit times to other stars based solely on the reported observations by Kevin Day.

Kevin Day reported observing the objects on his radar screen drifting southward at only 100 knots, but when approached by our military interceptor jets, they dropped from 28,000 feet in altitude down to about 50 feet above the surface of the ocean in .78 second. That gives an average speed of 24,431.8 mph (Mach 31.84), but that’s not actually what’s important.

The important part is the rate of acceleration. In order to hop across more than five miles of distance in .78 second and come to a dead stop at the end of that transit time, a Tic-Tac would have to undergo a minimum acceleration of 56010.26 m/s^2, which is 5711.46 g’s. It may have accelerated at a much higher rate if it reached a cruising speed quickly, and maintained it for a moment, before decelerating in order to come to a stop; but we don’t have such details, so we’ll work with the minimum acceleration demonstrated by his observations.

At that rate of acceleration, a Tic-Tac could travel from the Earth to Alpha Centauri – and arrive at a stop in order to plant a flag or take photos, in only 19.86 days. Most folks think that this would be impossible because we’ve been told that it’s impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. But that was before we learned about gravitational field propulsion – the only known form of reactionless propulsion, which the Tic-Tacs clearly exhibited. There is no upper limit to transit speed using this method. There are also no subjective g-forces for occupants within such a craft. And there’s no relativistic time dilation because, technically, the craft and occupants remain at rest with respect to their accelerating reference frame. We could debate these points but they’ve already been worked out in peer-reviewed academic theoretical physics papers.

So here’s where it gets really interesting. Transit at a constant acceleration changes our relationship to distances; you can think of it this way – constant acceleration compresses distances exponentially, so it actually takes the most time to travel short distances, and smaller and smaller increments of additional transit time to cover larger distances. Let’s look at an example. Bear in mind that it took 19.86 days to arrive at a dead stop at Alpha Centauri, which is 4.367 light-years away from us.

How long would it take, at the same minimum rate of acceleration observed by Kevin Day, to travel ten times as far away – to travel 43.67 light-years and arrive at a dead stop? It would take 62.87 days of travel time. For comparison the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth, England to Cape Cod in 66 days.

There are over 660 star systems within 40 light-years of the Earth. Astronomers estimate that about 2% of all stars in the Milky Way are Sun-like stars which are orbited by Earth-like planets in the habitable zone, so we can expect to find at least 13 ideal candidates for habitability within 62.87 days of transit time, if we humans had Tic-Tac AAV performance capabilities.

Unlike some folks, I don’t think that any secret military program on Earth has achieved anything even remotely akin to Tic-Tac performance capabilities, but perhaps now you can see why I think that it’s a goal that’s well worth our effort to achieve.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Well, admittedly the performance characteristics of whatever we've been shown is startling and unfamiliar to say the least- but by the Navy's own admission nobody claims to know what the hell they are. To extrapolate what they might be is an interesting exercise but as I've said, maybe those things just aren't what we think they are and the calculations are based on some fundamental error.

I'm not connecting decades of reports to the tic tac, gimbal, gofast- I'm just looking at what we've been offered since Dec 2017. Not dismissing the older cases at all but talking about UFOs with any credibility in a public arena in this fashion is also startling and unfamiliar and I'm not sure opening the floodgates to all that has transpired in the past would be beneficial at this point, especially with the TDL narrative. I am thinking of the press conference in CE3K and then suddenly we're talking Bigfoot .....

Kind of odd that in other threads we've gone on about the space force, secret tech, capabilities, you name it. But when we point to something that at least has the possibility of being a part of all that - nooooo, couldn't be. Then there ere are those who hang their hats on Ben Rich's 'there was a mistake in the math' phrase. I never thought the man was being serious and that the statement couldn't be literally interpreted - like Reagan and Gorbachev talking about an alien threat. Both of those trains of thought make me wince but I think there's a chance the truth lies in the middle somewhere.

Apart from debating the details of all that, which we've all been around the block a few times on, there is that 'credibility gap' with TTSA and their peculiar mix and message. I might think differently if it weren't for all the chazerai.

Oh, and as part of my Unidentified drinking game, every time we hear Christopher Mellon's title " former United States Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and later for Security and Information Operations" we all have to take a swig, Interesting article. I agree. Only picky point I'd make is that they didn't spend billions researching UFOs - those sensor systems did whatever they were designed to and anything else was the gravy.
 

wwkirk

Divine
I think we could all better understand the significance of the stunning performance characteristics of the Tic-Tac objects reported in the USS Nimitz CSG incidents by looking at a quick analysis of their interstellar spaceflight capabilities. So I crunched the numbers to demonstrate the transit times to other stars based solely on the reported observations by Kevin Day.

Kevin Day reported observing the objects on his radar screen drifting southward at only 100 knots, but when approached by our military interceptor jets, they dropped from 28,000 feet in altitude down to about 50 feet above the surface of the ocean in .78 second. That gives an average speed of 24,431.8 mph (Mach 31.84), but that’s not actually what’s important.

The important part is the rate of acceleration. In order to hop across more than five miles of distance in .78 second and come to a dead stop at the end of that transit time, a Tic-Tac would have to undergo a minimum acceleration of 56010.26 m/s^2, which is 5711.46 g’s. It may have accelerated at a much higher rate if it reached a cruising speed quickly, and maintained it for a moment, before decelerating in order to come to a stop; but we don’t have such details, so we’ll work with the minimum acceleration demonstrated by his observations.

At that rate of acceleration, a Tic-Tac could travel from the Earth to Alpha Centauri – and arrive at a stop in order to plant a flag or take photos, in only 19.86 days. Most folks think that this would be impossible because we’ve been told that it’s impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. But that was before we learned about gravitational field propulsion – the only known form of reactionless propulsion, which the Tic-Tacs clearly exhibited. There is no upper limit to transit speed using this method. There are also no subjective g-forces for occupants within such a craft. And there’s no relativistic time dilation because, technically, the craft and occupants remain at rest with respect to their accelerating reference frame. We could debate these points but they’ve already been worked out in peer-reviewed academic theoretical physics papers.

So here’s where it gets really interesting. Transit at a constant acceleration changes our relationship to distances; you can think of it this way – constant acceleration compresses distances exponentially, so it actually takes the most time to travel short distances, and smaller and smaller increments of additional transit time to cover larger distances. Let’s look at an example. Bear in mind that it took 19.86 days to arrive at a dead stop at Alpha Centauri, which is 4.367 light-years away from us.

How long would it take, at the same minimum rate of acceleration observed by Kevin Day, to travel ten times as far away – to travel 43.67 light-years and arrive at a dead stop? It would take 62.87 days of travel time. For comparison the Mayflower sailed from Plymouth, England to Cape Cod in 66 days.

There are over 660 star systems within 40 light-years of the Earth. Astronomers estimate that about 2% of all stars in the Milky Way are Sun-like stars which are orbited by Earth-like planets in the habitable zone, so we can expect to find at least 13 ideal candidates for habitability within 62.87 days of transit time, if we humans had Tic-Tac AAV performance capabilities.

Unlike some folks, I don’t think that any secret military program on Earth has achieved anything even remotely akin to Tic-Tac performance capabilities, but perhaps now you can see why I think that it’s a goal that’s well worth our effort to achieve.
What do you think of Randall's speculation that the Tic-Tac may have been a combination of holographic and radar spoofing technologies, and not a physical craft at all? In support of this notion he notes that personnel were at the ready to collect the data storage devices, as though they knew before hand that a sighting would occur. Also, the Tic-Tac appeared to know where the naval jets would rendezvous, which again implies prior knowledge.

I may have a couple of details slightly wrong, but I think have the gist of speculation right.
 
Last edited:
Well, admittedly the performance characteristics of whatever we've been shown is startling and unfamiliar to say the least- but by the Navy's own admission nobody claims to know what the hell they are. To extrapolate what they might be is an interesting exercise but as I've said, maybe those things just aren't what we think they are and the calculations are based on some fundamental error.
I'm not really sure if you're responding to me, or what you're saying here.

If you're responding to my simple analysis above, I can add some clarity.

I'm making three assumptions; 1.) the Tic-Tac was a real physical device as Cmdr. Fravor reported, 2.) Kevin Day's observations of that object via the SPY-1 radar system were correct, and 3.) the object utilized the only form of reactionless propulsion known to physics, gravitational field propulsion (given that there were no indications of any kind of reaction propulsion medium, I think this assumption is reasonable).

But maybe assumption #3 is incorrect - maybe the Tic-Tac emitted some kind of intense energy that's invisible to us, in order to accelerate at the observed minimum rate of 5711 g's. A burst of neutrinos perhaps.

Then it actually gets even more favorable for interstellar spaceflight, because a reaction propulsion system at that rate of acceleration is subject to relativistic time dilation. In this case, a Tic-Tac at that rate of acceleration could get to Alpha Centauri in just 1.2 days of proper time (on-board ship time) - Dr. Kevin Knuth employs this model in the recent paper he published with Robert Powell and Peter Reali: Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial Vehicles, Knuth, Powell, and Reali, Entropy, 2019.

I just think it's important to put the data into perspective, because there's little if any room for doubt based on that data, that the Tic-Tac represents a very effective interstellar-capable technology.

So yes it absolutely could have traveled here from another star system. Or, if it originated from human civilization, somebody has achieved Star-Trek-level spaceflight capabilities.

It comes down to one of those two possibilities. And both of them are very dramatic statements. In many ways the second one is far more unsettling that the first. If the government has spent our tax dollars to create interstellar-capable vehicles that could be helping us to explore the universe and colonize other habitable worlds right now, and they're hiding it from us, then they've betrayed us so severely that they should be overthrown immediately. But I don't think they have developed Tic-Tac technology; the theoretical and technological hurdles are just way beyond human capabilities at this point.
 
What do you think of Randall's speculation that the Tic-Tac may have been a combination of holographic and radar spoofing technologies, and not a physical craft at all? In support of this notion he notes that personnel were at the ready to collect the data storage devices, as though they knew before hand that a sighting would occur. Also, the Tic-Tac appeared to know where the naval jets would rendezvous, which again implies prior knowledge.

I may have a couple of details slightly wrong, but I think have the gist of speculation right.
Honestly I think that line of speculation is grasping at straws. Let's go through it.

- Why would anyone try to spoof only the SPY-1 radar system, but not the on-board radar systems of the F/A-18's?

- It's impossible to make a holographic projection in free space; there isn't even a speculative idea in the academic literature about how to go about it. We do have a couple of speculative ideas about gravitational field propulsion - and that kind of tech appears to be centuries away at best. But even if it were possible to project a hologram into free space without any kind of projection surface (the atmosphere isn't a projection surface), it would at best appear as a ghostly apparition or a mirage - to get the look of a solid surface like Cmdr. Fravor reported, requires light to reflect from a solid object. There is a method for producing a glowing patch of ionized air using a high-intensity beam of protons, but the range is limited, and Cmdr. Fravor didn't report a diffuse glowing patch of air; he saw a smooth pill-shaped object with a band around the middle and some kind of antenna-looking things sticking out of the bottom. I can think of no way, even theoretically, to project an image of that type into the air.

- Do you know how long after Cmdr. Fravor's intercept mission, the AF personnel showed up to collect the data? I think that this is a more reasonable explanation: the AF has a secret SAP program to study these types of encounters, and they sent some people to collect the data when they heard about the incident. They were only 60 miles off the coast of San Diego; it wouldn't have taken long for some personnel to fly out to the USS Nimitz CSG. We know that such programs exist; it's come up in the reporting many times. One of the motives for Sen. Reid to apply for SAP security status for the AATIP was to permit the AATIP to share data with these SAP programs.

- Cmdr. Fravor rendezvoused at the cap point with the other pilot to begin training exercises, and when she arrived the Controller on the Princeton instructed them to cancel their training agenda and instead investigate the radar return of the Tic-Tac. So the Tic-Tac would've known where the cap point was if it had been monitoring their activity. Cmdr. Fravor describes this here:

 
Last edited:
So Project Blue Beam is fantasy?
Apparently the answer is "yes":

Project Blue Beam - RationalWiki

But even in that scenario the alleged plan was to project images of deities onto clouds with lasers, which is a lot different than trying to make a 3D image in free air.

Btw, if anyone knows of even a wildly speculative idea about how one could go about projecting an opaque-looking non-glowing image into the air, I'd love to check it out so please post a link. Grazie.
 

wwkirk

Divine
In this interview, Linda Moulton Howe gives a detailed history of the metamaterials that TTSA is having tested by the US Army.
 
In this interview, Linda Moulton Howe gives a detailed history of the metamaterials that TTSA is having tested by the US Army.

Please dear God somebody give us a synopsis of this interview...I've already studied Art's Parts to death and having to listen to two hours of LMH and JG go over it all again could send me right over the edge... 0.o
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
I'm not really sure if you're responding to me

Not specifically, and yes, I can ramble.

I had a look at Knuth's paper when it was posted here and went through a few things quickly before this post. He used two earlier incidents to link to the TTSA videos and rather than dwell on the math or the implications that go along with it I looked at the references Knuth used.

In the Bethune case from 1951 we're looking at NICAP reports from 20 years after the fact. One of the witnesses aboard the plane (William Bridge) did not report seeing the structured craft the others did. The estimates of speed were from observation (that varies slightly between witnesses) and the 'radar data' was anecdotal. I can see why he picked this case though - it does bear similarity to the Nimitz incident.

And oh Jesus, did I need a laugh .... the shrink on board refused to look out the window! Probably wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope either. Maybe it was the father of that shrink from the Terminator .......

The 1986 JAL case is another matter. It's been disputed in the past. The references Knuth uses is a Lockheed Martin glossy brochure on their radar systems and a link to The Black Vault where JG seems to have done the legwork. Can't lay my hands specifically upon it this morning but somewhere in that pile is the actual radar track data itself - and on it is the operator's handwriting showing he thought it was a false return from the 747. Another one of those iconic cases that sounds great, maybe shows a few cracks under closer examination, but in the end only fueled the controversy.

The rest of it was what we've been offered from TTSA. The speed estimates used in the paper were also from eyewitness accounts and those videos. Mick West, among others, disagree with those estimates. I can't weigh in on any of that but from my perspective I see very clever people poring over those de-rezzed images and drawing very different conclusions. Compelling but apparently not conclusive.

I'd be interested to know what the peer review had to say.

The two basic camps are either ET or secret military tech.

ET is certainly a possibility. My last name isn't Klass so I wouldn't join a forum like this just to be a funsnatcher who believes nothing. Even filtering out the vast ocean of horseshit that surrounds UFOlogy there is clearly some external phenomenon at work - but eyewitness accounts are the justification for research not conclusions by themselves. My own experiences have clearly demonstrated that when it comes to UFOs eyewitness testimony is a crap shoot - when you are actually looking at one (twice for me) you get excited and aren't in a clear frame of mind. Even Bethune commented that there were several cameras aboard they were too rattled to even think about. Experienced that myself trying to take iPhone pics of aircraft locally - even when you know what it is your adrenaline is up trying to get the shot. One thing I like about Fravor's testimony is that the man has ice water in his veins and reacted exactly how you would expect a professional fighter pilot to. His wingman didn't seem to handle it well at all and had to be in shadow for her interview. Don't know if it affected her performance but I'm not sure I'd want her watchning my 6.

In 1951 no, we aren't talking about secret military tech. A single pilot chasing a Skyhook balloon, maybe. But in 2019 absolutely there are all sorts of things in the skies with all sorts of capabilities. Look at the drone swarms we've seen just for entertainment. As I've said, an agency like AATIP that collects reports on unusual 'incursions' makes practical sense. Not because ET wants to shut down our nukes but because any number of people might want to snoop in places they aren't wanted. There have been several accounts of near misses with commercial airline traffic, being in restricted airspace, etc. Considering the 20 year and counting GWOT any number of textbooks about asymmetric warfare will be written and things like the recent strikes on the Saudi oil refineries will be part of it. Point is if you look up and see something weird there's a greater chance than ever that it's quite real without even mentioning flying saucers and the military out of necessity has developed an interest they didn't have before. The objects from the TTSA videos weren't silver disks, cigars or the size of aircraft carriers.

Thomas, you have mentioned that the military has the conclusive data it won't release. Could be, no doubt they've got something. But if we're going to point to the door neither of us has the key to open then I'd say that I've also mentioned that we shovel trillions over decades into secret places and who knows what the hell might pop out the other end of that pipeline. Bear in mind that deception and misdirection are highly desirable qualities in certain systems. You want a wild ass guess? Remotely powered relatively insubstantial reconnaissance devices, maybe one appears as many, or appears to have capabilities it might or might not really have.

If I had something like that and wanted to test it I'd do it in a safe place against the best systems I knew of. In the Nimitz incident it knew where Fravor's CAP point was and he said it just appeared there - not transited quickly - appeared. Who says it was even the same tic-tac and that it moved? Those things suggest to me something human because if we wrote a dream list of capabilities they'd be on it. I can think of a few reasons to test a new system against that carrier group. I am something of a loss to come up with reasons why ET would be randomly hanging around what would be the equivalent of galleys or treasure junks to them to no apparent purpose for long periods of time.

The other thing is the nature of their release, the controversy around TTSA and their gaffes, TDL and so forth. I'm not the only one to point out that mixing tantalizing truths with nonsense for the purposes of misdirection has been used in the UFO community before. They want us to believe ET is here and yet deny any knowledge of it. Having read Mellon's article AATIP must've been a very minor player that apparently didn't have access to the 'good stuff'
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
eyewitness accounts are the justification for research not conclusions by themselves.

That's a very good point I think is overlooked from time to time, I would also add, eyewitness accounts are evidence 'something' occurred justifying research, investigation, and more questioning...I've seen often enough where someone will use eye witness accounts as definitive proof but that's a fallacy of wishful thinking...

...
 
Top