Bigelow, UFOs, MUFON and ‘DeLonge’ Road to AATIP

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I’m just joking around with you bro

a reply to: Willtell

Yes.

But you are still correct.. I have terrible foot in mouth disease.

If ATS let you edit like 24 hours back, not just 4, I'd take out
my reference to 'boring'.

It's just like my favorite movie "the invention of lying"; just
because something is true.. it doesn't mean that you should
necessarily say it.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

No no no no no no

It was funny the way you posted that

Look, we recommend and critique books all the time.

For instance, I just praised Stargate Conspiracy


Have been critical of many books in the UFO field... With all due respect to him, Richard Dolan, I didn’t like his book, AD After disclosure. Talk about boring.

Even SW Ranch to me was pretty weak... I was waiting be scared but it never happened

a reply to: Direne

i concur with all your points.

RFI was an accidental encounter between multiple factions.

Now this is strange.. as "the Phenomenon", at least part of it
is very nearly "timeless" and should not have "accidents".

however the "machine intelligence" is not timeless in the
same way...so it can commit errors... though it doesn't
do it very often.

Of course these 'errors' could simply be intentional, to give
us symbiotic monkeys something to do... to allow us to
traverse the entire discovery process... starting as enemies
and ending as friends.

Rather like an episode of wiley coyote and the road runner,
where at the end of the episode they punch out at a time
clock and say "see ya tomorrow Fred, have a good one".

As big as I talk, there are many things i won't say.. but also
don't know yet.. we are all pieces on the chess board of
things that we don't understand yet.

Really.. the major purpose of humans is to act as a cheap
roach motel for the parties. I'll leave that enigmatic
statement hanging for the maybe 3 people on ATS who
might catch the reference.

I'd also like to respond in the affirmative to something
you said a while back...

it's this either or thinking that is killing us humans..
and even the "Phenomenon" is struggling with it,
through us actually.

I'ts not "is the phenomenon this" or "is the phenomenon
that"... it's closer to both but neither.

The Phenomenon looks "liminal", not because it actualy
is, but because OUR boundaries are too limiting, so it
appears that way.

The Phenomenon is perfectly coherent.. and there are
people who understood it say 5000 years ago... quite
well.

But if you don't offer the Phenomenon either food or
sex, it won't like you.. and will just play with you.

Both food and sex can break through barriers.. and
the medium of exchange between more interesting
forms of life are entirely in terms of food/sex..

Kev

a reply to: Willtell

LOL.

Well thanks for clarifying.. I do tend to be a bit oversensitive about
my flaws... it's not that I deny them.. if anything I promote them..
maybe I'm too hard on myself?

As for SWR, I don't expect it to become active again... unless one
of a short list of things happens.

The "Phenomenon" gets bored too you see...

It plays with people who have something to give back to it.. and
if there's nobody to play with.. it won't return.

Just that simple.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

it's this either or thinking that is killing us humans..

Kev, the Phenomenon is not the lights in Rendlesham Forest or any other site where an encounter happens to occur. The phenomenon is a third variable in the equation. In any encounter there are two parties who encounter each other, and a third one, observing. Maybe one team is more advanced, but no matter how advanced you are, you can be fault-tolerant, yet fault prone. Crashes and accidents happen for everyone because accidents cannot be ruled out: they are part of quantum mechanics and physics. Fluctuations affect everyone. No matter how advanced a civilization is, they still will experience crashes, fatal accidents, terminal catastrophes. The very Universe is not fault free.

A supernova flare will wipe out anyone around, no matter if you are a member of a hypercivilization or an ape-like inhabitant of a rocky planet. Any encounter is always the encounter between apes, one piloting a UFO, and others holding laterns in their hands in the middle of a forest. No matter how advanced a being is, death would still be a mystery for him. Survival is what rules life forms (otherwise they would be called death forms. Even the gods make mistakes.

Mr. Bigelow was interested in cattle mutilations, in near death experiences, and lately in inflatable habitats to be used by colonists in Mars. You don't have rockets yet to get to Mars, and even if you did, you still need to solve a lot of complex problems for a 3-year trip to Mars, so... why inflatable habitats? The entire space business of Mr. Bigelow company is just defense business. The ultimate goal is space-based defense systems, no matter if they wish to sell it as the conquest of Mars. And the entire AATIP role was to study weird activity in the skies in order to infer the military capability of the nation's enemies.

The project was cancelled not because it didn't produce significant results; rather, it was cancelled because they realized that the best way ahead in order to anticipate what the enemy is up to is to simply steal the specs, the design documents, and all significant data, and that is done using cyberwar. It is cheaper, more efficient, and gives you all the data you want to know about the latest defense developments of your enemies.

Every party knows quite in advance the minute technical details of you brand new aircraft, your subs, your sats, and your DEWs quite before deployment. Sometimes you need to recover some debris here and there, to just confirm this and that technical detail, and maybe sometimes you need to stage a couple of UFOs sightings over this and that deserted road, either to test your systems, or to uncover your tests.

The shock comes when both you and them realize there's a third unexpected observer watching, an observer which sometimes is openly hostile and lethal.

I've an idea for a book about crop circles to be called "Herding the Stalk" but that would be off topic too wouldn't it?

So I'll ask again but I guess it's like flogging a dead cow!

Anyway there is Daily Grail article from a few days ago.

Jacques Vallee and the Mystery of the ‘Alien Alloys’



The author claims

The 3 most relevant points to be extracted from this presentation are:

* Some of these metal materials are seen to contain trace levels of elements (and isotope of said elements) which no man-made or terrestrial metals would be expected to contain. Are these contaminants or purposefully introduced (i.e. engineered)?

* The technical analysis needs to be expanded through the use of several instruments to arrive at more precise composition levels –no analysis from a single instrument or method is fully reliable.

* An aggressive program or search for additional samples needs to be conducted in order to reach a general picture of the entire problem.

Enjoy, endure or ignore.

a reply to: mirageman

This is good news for humans. Your link states that Mr. Vallee explains in his conference:

the things he’s uncovered over the years by analyzing metal samples allegedly ejected by UFOs

So, highly advanced civilizations use propulsion methods that eject stuff that falls to the ground carelessly. This speaks volumes about their environmental ethics...

Additionally, the link you provided states that Mr. Valle also refers to the (in)famous Roswell crash, so now we have dirty aliens who are also prone to crash. Basically, highly contaminant vehicles that crash... sounds too human to me.

Mirageman, here on Earth you have wonderful propulsion technologies that are environmentally friendly and do not require you to eject anything (like deuterium fusion propulsion or simply nuclear powered engines, or any of the available electromagnetic propelantless propulsion systems). These vehicles crash too, though. But at least they don't eject anything.

a reply to: Direne

Yes Di good observations. Dr. Vallée is perhaps contradictory when he says how he doesn’t have any access to the materials from those type of cases [Roswell], which might or might not have been retrieved by the government. In another interview he has mentioned materials from 1947 (though not Roswell specifically IIRC).

Like you said yourself no matter how advanced you are, you can be fault-tolerant, yet fault prone. Crashes and accidents happen for everyone because accidents cannot be ruled out: they are part of quantum mechanics and physics. So why wouldn't highly advanced civilizations use propulsion methods that eject stuff that falls to the ground carelessly? Who said the only way is ethics?

But is there actually hard proof these are from highly advanced civilisations?

a reply to: mirageman

why wouldn't highly advanced civilizations use propulsion methods that eject stuff that falls to the ground carelessly?

Because you don't want the earthlings to recover whatever debris is left so that they could revert engineer your technology. That's why. If you are sufficiently advanced to perform an interstellar travel, you are expected to design your probes such that, in case of a malfunction, they totally disintegrate leaving no traces at all.

That's why.

a reply to: Direne

You seem to know a lot about how 'advanced civilisations' would behave I'll give you that.

But surely given that these quantum fluctuations affect everyone, no matter how advanced a civilisation is, then surely even a total disintegration after malfunction process could be prone to fault. The next thing you know you've left a tiny trace behind. An ore on Terra.

Or are you trying to say these things never happen and Dr. Vallée is confused at what he is trying to study? Or even worse he's blagging everyone?

a reply to: mirageman

I wonder if these ethics were made in Chelsea, Mirage?

Direne, you say:

Mirageman, here on Earth you have wonderful propulsion technologies that are environmentally friendly

it might be lost in translation, but that is a very odd way to phrase things? Perhaps you mean nothing by it, but it reads as you are not human?

Are we welcoming our first none human intelligence on ATS ?

a reply to: ctj83

I wonder if these ethics were made in Chelsea, Mirage?

Some form of IT VB programming? I'm not sure a higher intelligence would look at stuff like that to be honest. Bit too low brow I'd say.

I have to think of Frank Kimbler and his alleged Roswell debris. I remember that in Kimbler case, he worked with Bigelows and Puthoffs organisation, but both didn´t seem to be qualified to do a proper analysis :

Bigelow Aerospace showed some interest in helping Kimbler with his analysis, but after spending months with little results, Kimbler had to go elsewhere.

www....(nolink)/test-confirms-roswell-debris-733/10835

a reply to: mirageman

Yes, I'm stating there are no debris from UFOs, and whatever Mr. Vallee is analyzing can be whatever you wish to be, but certainly not from UFOs. That's my statement. Do you have any problem with my statement, or are we here supposed to never dissent?

If Mr. Vallee is going to analyze that debris, I'm sure he will do it objectively and, above all, scientifically. And science is based on contrasting differing views and hypotheses and to perform experimental tests to prove or disprove one's hypotheses. The first hypothesis to prove is this: that the debris under analysis come from a UFO. Or has this been already proven by Mr. Vallee?

My point is this: prove first that the debris is not terrestrial, or at least non cosmological (meteorites, etc.), then prove it was ejected by some flying machine, and finally prove that flying machine is non terrestrial.

a reply to: mirageman

Pearl controls for flight systems?
However, could it be that a
Python is in charge?

In all seriousness, we could also ask how many bits in alien byte? Do they use ASCII?

a reply to: Direne

"The first hypothesis to prove is this: that the debris under analysis come from a UFO."

That's not logically possible?

I think that there are a variety of options but of course it depends on what you consider an adequate burden of proof;

a reply to: ctj83

Opinions have no room in science. Facts do, hypotheses do, and experimental data do. There could be minor differences in interpretation of factual data, which would require more experimental tests. That's how science works.

But even before doing science, one can apply Logic. If you design a propulsion system that is able to take you from one star system to the next, ejecting stuff is certainly primitive. There is no interstellar propulsion systems that we know of that require you to eject slags or any kind of debris. Therefore, before starting to analyze anything, wouldn't be better to first clarify why on Earth (pun intended) would your UFO eject anything at all?

a reply to: Direne

You can adopt a different position for sure. This is one of purposes of forums like this. As long as we are polite about it then was can always agree to disagree as well.

But when you say....

....whatever Mr. Vallee is analyzing can be whatever you wish to be, but certainly not from UFOs

I do have a problem because you stated "there is no debris from UFOS". How can you possibly know that? Surely you can't prove that negative?

Also why would it be 'whatever I wish it to be'? You seem to be a little confused in your thinking. Because you then go onto say

The first hypothesis to prove is this: that the debris under analysis come from a UFO. Or has this been already proven by Mr. Vallee? .....

So I am sure you can see why I have a problem. You are contradicting yourself . You are saying the debris should be proved to come from a UFO. But you are denying that it can come from a UFO?

So which is it?

a reply to: Direne

You've effectively patronised me by 'explaining science', whilst espousing opinions that are contradictory? I don't mind rudeness if you are making smart points, but I'd appreciate you not being offensive when your proposals are flawed.

Therefore, apologies, I meant your hypotheses is not logical and is close to being a strawman. You're attempting to reframe debris as always being ejecta, then building a house a wolf could blow down on top.

Therefore, before starting to analyze anything, wouldn't be better to first clarify why on Earth (pun intended) would your UFO eject anything at all?

First Principles would help here.

More than that, proving one piece of ejecta is from a UFO cannot be extrapolated to all UFOS, surely?

You are basing your logic on the assumption that all debris is ejecta, which is clearly incorrect if you watch his 2017 presentation. Part of my puzzlement here is that this is the same opinion Kev holds, yet is clearly contradicted by recent interviews?