Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

NAVAIR Weapons Division Sea Range - operates test and evaluations at....Drum Roll.......

The islands I have covered previously that are in the area where the sightings of the "UAP" were noted in the original Nimitz Sightings.

San Nicholas Island

In Sept 2002 it was announced that the contract for a new pier at SNI had been awarded to Nova Group, Inc for $11,500,000. Currently, barges that bring supplies to the island are landed on the beach and are routinely delayed due to weather and sea conditions. The barge delays cause vital military testing and training on the NAVAIR Weapons Division Sea Range to slip. The new pier will significantly reduce the delays and impacts on the growing population of seals and sea lions that breed and pup in the area.

Contract Number N68711-02-C-2004 was awarded by the Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, with assistance from the NAVAIR Weapons Division, and the Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center.

Source

a reply to: pigsy2400

Nice work, pigsy...

What a curious coincidence this is ;-)

a reply to: pigsy2400

I'd love to see this information put directly to Fravor in an interview.

I'm sure a well respected pilot such as 'Mr Sex' would have known this and weighed everything up before suggesting he'd seen ALIENZZZZ thirteen years later.

Or was ET only ever a suggestion once Zondo & Co began interviewing Nimitz witnesses in late 2014/early 2015? Call me a cynic 'n all...

See previous post on this
LINK TO PREVIOUS POSTS REGARDING ISLAND'S

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Noes, I'll call you Haters! Why can't you simply love the Military with all of your black budget hearts, and trust a pilot's analysis blindly without digging too deep into this? Now look what you cynics did! Alien outside agitator alarm, anyone? This thread is an alien threat, and Pigsy is a communist spy with pointy ears. Obviously.

Scientific and Technological Matters to National Security
Research & Engineering, Test & Evaluation

Doesn't sound like Aliens to me - sounds like a test of a platform in a real world scenario. But Hey - that's my opinion based on the information that's available.

Yes. But. Still... it really could relate to unknown/ "alien" tech in case said tech is deemed to pose a threat to the National Security. Any National Security. Those folks would be at it regardless, right? Blacked-out Wall of Shadows. Mr. Presents, tear down this wall!
No? Ok, here's the deal: make me forget things like MK Ultra and point me to the aliens. Any aliens will do, I'm scared easily. Eventually...

In addition to Paul Dean's Blog linked by Pigsy, Chris Lambright has also produced a 20 page pdf called

Bigelow, BAASS, the Nimitz Encounters and TTSA

Obviously it's better to read the full document in your own time.

However it raises some very important questions about the "official TTSA" narrative.

Such as


• Does the Navy have a silent motive for supporting TTSA?

• Why is the account of Douglas Kurth (later employed by BAASS to manage the AAWSAP contract) played down and why does his account not fit with Fravor’s story? Kurth was close to the disturbance on the surface of the ocean before it was gone. So must have still been close by but ignores Fravor’s “I’m engaged” signal and returns to his ship as ordered. Why if Kurth was so close was Fravor then sent in to investigate?

• Elizondo, did eventually interview Fravor. But only after he joined TTSA in 2017. However Fravor has confirmed that he was also interviewed by ONI in 2015 prior to publication of the Fightersweep Article and also in 2009 when, ironically, Douglas Kurth (who was now at BAAS) contacted him saying “...we have a customer who likes to investigate this stuff....can we do it?”

• Why did Elizondo need to interview Fravor again in 2017 after all that? Why was AATIP really required if the Nimitz case was in 2004?

• If AATIP started in 2007, as claimed, it pre-dates AAWSAP by at least a year. How can this be?

• Why was DeLonge given advisers (Carey and McCasland) who had already retired from the USAF?

• How did the advisory team morph into TTSA with totally different people onboard coincidently also retired from their previous roles)?

• Why TTSA? Is it all to claim copyright and patents on something people in the ‘black’ world would not be able to admit its source? If that is the case, brings up the point the public have already paid via taxes for this work.

• Why is the UFO community used as a marketing tool to create buzz and talk about TTSA but then ignored completely (other than selected sympathisers).



It's a fairly easily digestible and well sourced read. Although much of it has already been discussed in this thread there are still a few nuggets of info that are presented. But don't expect a definitive answer.

a reply to: mirageman

It's a fairly easily digestible and well sourced read. Although much of it has already been discussed in this thread there are still a few nuggets of info that are presented. But don't expect a definitive answer.

You got that right. A lot of questions and no answers. Very mile mannered guy.

Interesting article, though. It asks questions we’ve all dealt with here and offers possibilities many here have suggested.

The article concludes it may be all about control of the ufo narrative. think that's a reasonable conclusion.

“The simple answer seems to be to control the narrative and not promote any other sources. In business, you want to convince others that they need what you are selling, and they can only get it from you!”

The history of IC retirees having an interest in ufology is pertinent. He talks about the guys retiring and going into TTSA or related activities.

originally posted by: mirageman

• Does the Navy have a silent motive for supporting TTSA?

The author makes a good observation that is hard to refute:

The most likely reason the Navy would patent things without using the inventions secrecy act is because they are already using "the technology" royalty free and are worried things might change.

a reply to: pigsy2400

This is a very interesting and somewhat possibly related article.

The War Zone - Navy "Nemesis" and related projects

Well worth a read, in my opinion.

a reply to: beetee

Indeed BT, Zaph has spoken about it at length in another thread

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: mirageman

• Does the Navy have a silent motive for supporting TTSA?

The author makes a good observation that is hard to refute:

The most likely reason the Navy would patent things without using the inventions secrecy act is because they are already using "the technology" royalty free and are worried things might change.

If they are already using "the technology", then there is nothing to worry about. They can claim prior user rights.

a reply to: pigsy2400

For those unware of the NEMESIS system;

This new electronic warfare "system of systems" has been clandestinely refined over the last five years and judging from the Navy's own budgetary documents, it may be operational soon, if it isn't already. This secretive new electronic warfare "ecosystem" is known as Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors, or NEMESIS.


NEMESIS is not just some 'paper program.' From publicly available, but obscure documents we've collected, it's clear that, for years, the Navy has been developing and integrating multiple types of unmanned vehicles, shipboard and submarine systems, countermeasures and electronic warfare payloads, and communication technologies to give it the ability to project what is, in essence, phantom fleets of aircraft, ships, and submarines. These realistic-looking false signatures and decoys have the ability to appear seamlessly across disparate and geographically separated enemy sensor systems located both above and below the ocean's surface. 

]The Drive

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: mirageman

• Does the Navy have a silent motive for supporting TTSA?

The author makes a good observation that is hard to refute:

The most likely reason the Navy would patent things without using the inventions secrecy act is because they are already using "the technology" royalty free and are worried things might change.

If they are already using "the technology", then there is nothing to worry about. They can claim prior user rights.

Prior rights wouldn't apply if "classified" patents relating to specific elements of "the technology" were already in existence.
The Navy is seemingly trying to gain public first to file on the operability of the system of systems - not the specific elements.

Dont know if the author is correct but it's hard to provide any other sensible arguments.

It appears that there is now a concerted campaign by a certain section of the US government to roll out a partial and gradual “official disclosure” process, designed to begin to release previously classified information to the wider public. If a partial disclosure is indeed under way, then the logical inference is that there has also been a deliberate programme of “official denial” with regards to UFOs that we can surmise has been operational since at least the initial debunking of the 1947 “Roswell” flying saucer incident, which was widely reported in the media. In 1972, the US defence department conducted a series of investigations into the regular sightings that were being reported across the country, which were ultimately compiled into a report titled Project Blue Book — now converted into a popular television series

Now that the navy has confirmed that these UFOs recorded by its pilots are “real”, it suggests that the countries of the world collectively need to begin to articulate how they plan to engage with them in the event that an initial public contact event takes place.

mg.co.za...

a reply to: celltypespecific

Hehe. A real what? A real sensor return? A real decoy with advanced ewar capabilities?

That is the question, of course.

a reply to: celltypespecific

That was an interesting read. Thankyou.

originally posted by: beetee
a reply to: celltypespecific

Hehe. A real what? A real sensor return? A real decoy with advanced ewar capabilities?

That is the question, of course.

To your point....BREAKING NEWS:

Ex-Navy admiral says UFO analyses ‘inconclusive’

SARASOTA — America’s former Chief of Naval Operations stated on Thursday that the unidentified flying objects that appeared to have outperformed Navy fighter pilots on videos recorded in 2004 and 2015 remain a mystery. “I’ve seen the videos and, at least in my time, most of the assessments were inconclusive as to what it was,” said retired Admiral Gary Roughead, following a speaking engagement in Sarasota. “But the whole issue of defense against autonomous vehicles is one that the department is taking pretty darned seriously.”

www.heraldtribune.com...

a reply to: celltypespecific

It's nothing more than an opinion piece (it even says so) . One where the "journalist" hasn't even done any proper research and to anyone even mildly knowledgeable on the subject looks to be seriously unqualified to write such a piece.

If a partial disclosure is indeed under way, then the logical inference is that there has also been a deliberate programme of “official denial” with regards to UFOs that we can surmise has been operational since at least the initial debunking of the 1947 “Roswell” flying saucer incident, which was widely reported in the media. In 1972, the US defence department conducted a series of investigations into the regular sightings that were being reported across the country, which were ultimately compiled into a report titled Project Blue Book — now converted into a popular television series.

Firstly the "official denials" began in the early 1950s on the recommendations of the Robertson Panel. Roswell was always considered much ado about nothing until it was sexed up in the 1980s with alien bodies and mystery metals.

Project Blue Book followed Projects Grudge and Sign in the 1950s and ended in 1969 not 1972 as the author claims. Where did he get that from? The popular TV series is completely fictional.

I am also not sure what the author means below.

This year, the US government will formally operationalise its so-called Space Force within the defence department, as an additional and separate branch of its military complex, which is tasked with confronting threats in space. Regrettably, this typically US response to militarise and securitise any prospective engagement with nonhuman interstellar aerial craft could precipitate a number of unforeseen challenges.

Securitise is a financial term regarding pooling debts and selling them off as bonds or similar to third parties. Maybe the US will try to sell some of it's debt on to aliens?

The article says the author is a Professor. I am not sure what of.

I'd have been embarrassed to write that and you should be embarrassed for posting it and not checking first yourself Cellty.

In other news Black Vault has issued a new statement from our friends in the Pentagon...

At some point in the last couple months you have asked, in one way or another, why some DOD statements about the AATIP program have changed since December 2017 or even since this past Spring. I wanted to provide you with a broad comment regarding the changes.

Myself and my predecessors in my office, as well as our colleagues in the Defense Intelligence Agency and elsewhere in the department, have done our best to provide you and others asking about AATIP the most accurate information we had available to us at the time we responded to your questions. Questions about AATIP have continued ever since this past Spring, becoming more focused and asking for details beyond what was readily available on a program that ended nearly eight years ago, especially as people who had direct knowledge of AATIP have moved to other positions or left the department. As we conducted research to try to answer the continuing questions, we sometimes uncovered new information that changed some of our previous responses. When responding to subsequent queries, we used the new information in our responses to be as accurate as possible with what we now knew.

Susan Gough, Pentagon Spokesperson

See The Pentagon Explains WHY They Changed Past UFO Statements


So the games continue. However at least the Pentagon seem prepared to issue statements and respond to people like John at Black Vault.

originally posted by: mirageman

It's nothing more than an opinion piece (it even says so) . One where the "journalist" hasn't even done any proper research and to anyone even mildly knowledgeable on the subject looks to be seriously unqualified to write such a piece.

Well said.

originally posted by: mirageman
In other news Black Vault has issued an new statement from our friends in the Pentagon...

At some point in the last couple months you have asked, in one way or another, why some DOD statements about the AATIP program have changed since December 2017 or even since this past Spring. I wanted to provide you with a broad comment regarding the changes.

Myself and my predecessors in my office, as well as our colleagues in the Defense Intelligence Agency and elsewhere in the department, have done our best to provide you and others asking about AATIP the most accurate information we had available to us at the time we responded to your questions.

Susan Gough, Pentagon Spokesperson

I'm taking it Sarah Gough is now the 'one person'.

..a very recent change in policy citing how all UFO/UAP enquiries to the Airforce, Navy, DOD, DIA etc. are now being routed to just one person in the Pentagon's OSD (see 45:00)

Perhaps she can also explain the whys and wherefores of these DIA UFO documents (including specific routing and transmittal codes) which simply should not exist?

"Although the government professes to have had no official interest in UFOs since the Air Force closed down Project Blue Book in 1969, since that time a number of classified messages about UFO incidents have been sent from overseas posts to the DIA and then relayed to the other agencies. Sometimes the UFO messages have gone to the White House as well".