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

originally posted by: RobertSheaffer
"Excess energy" is a euphemism for "energy from nothing," or "a perpetual motion machine." Puthoff says that the Defense Department comes to them to "disprove" extraordinary excess energy claims. "So far we have disproven all of them." I'm glad to hear that, but I don't see why the Defense Department needs to spend taxpayer money refuting such claims. Anyone making such claims must prove it themselves.

It's logical to say "Anyone making such claims must prove it themselves."

However in practice that can be quite a challenging concept, as the Newman Patent case illustrated. The measurements can be beyond most people, including apparently some scientists and engineers, and off-the-shelf measurement equipment is not designed to handle some unique measurement problems.

NBS report short-circuits energy machine.

In order to test Newman's machine, NBS scientists Robert E. Hebner, Gerard N. Stenbakken and David L. Hillhouse had to use sophisticated equipment not generally found in most research laboratories. These instruments, unlike many conventional current and voltage meters, were designed to handle the sharp spikes that punctuate the input and output electrical signals.

"We considered this a tricky, complex measurement problem," says an NBS representative. The measurements took three months to complete.

There are some fairly straightforward solutions to this problem though without making the complex measurements NBS had to make. There were a couple of NASA engineers (can't find the article now or the ATS thread about them) who in their spare time said they would evaluate such "free energy" machines as Puthoff's firm was contracted to evaluate. But instead of relying on dubious and potentially wrong output measurements, they required that output be connected to a motor with a shaft. Then you could tie a string with a weight on it to the shaft and report how long it took to lift how much weight, and compare that to the input measurements. That was a brilliant solution which gets around all the measurement difficulties such as NBS described above, and saved the NASA guys from evaluating a bunch of inventions which the inventor could then prove to themselves didn't really make excess energy.

If the Pentagon used the same criterion as the NASA guys did, then probably Puthoff's firm wouldnt have anything to evaluate. But it's actually pretty easy to measure "free energy" the way Newman did it. I could do the same thing and many others have, but I couldn't pass the NASA engineers' test which got around that electrical measurement mess with a simple dynamo.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I couldn't pass the NASA engineers' test which got around that electrical measurement mess with a simple dynamo.

I meant to say dynamometer, not dynamo.

There were a couple of NASA engineers (can't find the article now or the ATS thread about them) who in their spare time said they would evaluate such "free energy" machines as Puthoff's firm was contracted to evaluate.

It wasn't easy to find the old story from 10 years ago, but I finally found it, these NASA folks would do the test in their spare time if their requirements were met. They could potentially put Puthoff's Earthtech out of the perpetual motion machine testing business:

NASA scientists Nelson & House willing to verify overunity electromagnetic machines

the designer needs to test their motor under a known mechanical load. If they don’t have a dynamometer available, then the simplest way to do this is to simply have their motor lift a known weight by winding a string or flexible cable of some sort around a spindle. This will serve as their homemade “dynamometer” if you will. We need to know the amount of weight lifted, the height the weight is lifted and the speed the weight is lift to get an output power measurement. Normally the speed is determined by the RPM’s of the output spindle. So, if the designer knows the height lifted with each RPM then all we need to know is the RPM’s of the spindle (not the motor if gear ratios are involved) to have the lifting speed.

The designer needs to measure the amount of current and voltage being delivered to their motor with a digital oscilloscope. We can recommend a brand and model. The oscilloscope needs to be adjusted such that a few cycles of the motor operation are captured within the oscilloscope screen. The voltage and current levels need to be adjusted to fill up the oscilloscope screen so that details of the input voltage and current can clearly be seen. Additionally and most important of all, the data values that are plotted on the oscilloscope screen need to be captured and saved to a CSV file so that they may be analyzed in a spreadsheet. We use Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to do this analysis.

Now the designer needs to perform several tests with their motor. We need to see this data captured when their motor is under no load to see how fast the motor will spin with no load. We need to see how much current and voltage their motor requires when they apply full power and prevent the motor from spinning and then we need to see their data when the motor is doing work by lifting a weight at a constant speed.

With all of this data, we can characterize the motor and get an understanding for the power curve for the motor and also determine the motor’s efficiency. We would like for the designer to video tape each of these test runs that we have described here.

That is all there is to it.

We are not out to embarrass anyone. If anyone wanted to have their motor tested privately with the results kept off of the web and away from the public we will honor that request.

By the same token, we are engineers and not theoretical physicists.

Maybe part of what made the article hard for me to find is the headlines called them "NASA scientists", but I was searching "NASA engineers" because I knew they were engineers, as stated in their correspondence.

According to former Navy Pilot "Paco Chierici" - each day on the schedule for the airwing based on the USS Nimitz carrier group, there is a small cartoon on the planner everyday. The text on old comic strips is usually changed to reflect what is or has been occurring onboard.

The day after Commander Fravors "encounter" the cartoon for that days planner issued on the USS Nimitz was this;



The Text Reads;

"Strike, Fast Eagle 110. Splash One UFO.....
With Black Ace One being a master in Air-to-Air combat, the UFO never stood a chance"

Paco adds that the attitude to it onboard was "that's its funny" - doesn't scream Threat, Threat, Threat to me...

The screenshot was taken from "TheBasementOffice" Video on Youtube; which can be found here;
Basement Office video

a reply to: pigsy2400

Thanks for posting that Pigsy.

The article that Chierici wrote in 2015 is an interesting read too. I hadn't appreciated that the investigation (and presumably the confiscation of all the records etc) hadn't taken place until 2009 and that at the time (2004) all those involved had simply brushed it off, nothing more being said or seemingly looked into. The report that he has in his hands seems to be more of a consequence of the video having been up on Youtube rather than any indication that anything all that important, or unusual, happened.

The 'fact' that he has that report in his hands, that Fravor was happy to retell his story to all and sundry, and a video was, apparently, illegally down-loaded from a military system, up loaded to media platforms for public consumption and waited for two years before anyone with investagative powers noticed (although Chierici and Fravor clearly did and didn't see anything illegal or unusual or suspect enough to report it to their superiors or whatever) - all that doesn't just indicate a lack of 'threat' but a total lack of concern altogether, from the Naval point of view at least. There doesn't appear to be much concern from the Navy about any of this being made public at all, unofficially that is.

sofrep.com...

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Taking this all at face value I think it poses questions about the competence of many US Navy personnel. They chose to do nothing about ...

....Princeton had been picking up some bizarre returns on their Death Star-worthy SPY-1 radar. On several occasions beginning 10 November, the Fire Control Officer and the extremely experienced Fire Control Senior Chief had detected multiple returns descending from far above the radar’s scan volume–somewhere higher than 80,000 ft. The targets, dubbed Anomalous Aerial Vehicles (AAVs), would drop from above 80K to hover roughly 50 feet off the water in a matter of seconds.

They left it four days and then dispatched fighter aircraft with no munitions to check it out. When the pilots returned they then also chose to do nothing about it. At least that's what the public are expected to believe.

If this was a real and unknown threat of any kind does anyone believe that the US Navy is telling the truth about this?

We also come back to....

....I called Dave to refresh my memory before sitting down to write this bizarre encounter, he informed me that the video had been removed from YouTube. He told me that a government agency with a three letter identifier had recently conducted an investigation into the AAVs and had exhaustively interviewed all parties involved

Strange how, 11 year later in 2015, we have an investigation involving the poster boy of the Nimitz case. Just before this article was written. The author, Paco Chierici, has confirmed more details in other interviews. One hinting that he was visited by ONI agents and appears to have acquired the report from someone linked to AATIP.

...."...in 2015 I became the editor of... Fighter Sweep, and one of the first articles I wrote..I call Dave up and I say..

Can you give me any more details? So he goes, you're not going to believe this, they've just left, the the investigation, ONI, Office of Naval Investigation [KB-actually Intelligence.] Literally, just walked out my door....

A note: This seems to suggest that Chierici obtained a copy of the 2015 ONI investigation report.

However, on the 17 December 2019, Chierici was interviewed on the UFO News Network show

"I called Dave up to, you know, refresh all the points that I was gonna write about and that's when I found out that AATIP had done an investigation...Dave believes they were AATIP and they had completed that in 2009 and through a variety of different means I was able to get my hands on the AATIP report before I did my article."

Source

Especially after the leak of the tape was dismissed in 2009 when Susan Gough stated..

.....But in terms of investigating the video leak, Gough writes, “Given the time since recording (approximately 5 years), the widespread distribution of the recording within the ship at the time of recording, and the size of the crew at the time (approximately 5,000), it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video.”

So someone went exhaustively investigating again even though the leaking of the video had been dismissed 6 years earlier and no one did a thing about the sightings in 2004 anyway. If official statements are to be believed.

We know Isaac Koi knows the persons claiming to have removed and leaked the video. Because he told us so last year and he confirmed it himself.

....Over the last few months, we've slowly obtained his name, place of birth, date of birth, photo and other information. But we still don't have any contact details for him.

We know Tim McMillan, who is now posing as a freelance investigative journalist, has also had at least third person contact with this person because he said.

..While reporting this story, Popular Mechanics tracked down an individual claiming to be thefinaltheory. Still fearing reprisal, even under the assumed pseudonym, the individual did not wish to speak on the record...

Source

I bet he didn't. But he's quite happy to speak to those believed to be journalists and ufologists? Hmmm....

Maybe the US military and Intelligence personnel involved in all of this really are actually incredibly inept and stupid. Or maybe all parties involved know what is going on here?

TLDR

We have a situation where there is supposed to be an 'unidentified threat' from a very long time ago in Nov 2004. So threatening that the people at TTSA and their social media stooges still promote it as one even now.

But the US Navy waited 4 days to check it out. Then did nothing when their F18s returned to the carrier with a story.

The Pentagon claim the 'FLIR' tape was " was widely shared throughout the ship at that time..[and]..it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video.".

But that does not appear to be the case. Because the guy who removed the video from the carrier fears reprisals and is known to Isaac Koi and Tim Mcmillan.

Things don't add up do they?




Is there more to come? Probably...

a reply to: mirageman

But that does not appear to be the case. Because the guy who removed the video from the carrier fears reprisals and is known to Isaac Koi and Tim Mcmillan.

Things don't add up do they?

No they do not add up. Why?

a reply to: mirageman

Do we all have to still pretend that Lil Tim didn't rejoin the family firm.

originally posted by: mirageman

But the US Navy waited 4 days to check it out. Then did nothing when their F18s returned to the carrier with a story.

And despite advanced notice of alleged unusual activity, Fravor and Co couldn't be bothered to switch on their cameras during the first flight out to investigate? That aspect has never made sense since the story broke.

The Pentagon claim the 'FLIR' tape was " was widely shared throughout the ship at that time..[and]..it was determined that there was no way to accurately determine who might have released the video.".

But that does not appear to be the case. Because the guy who removed the video from the carrier fears reprisals and is known to Isaac Koi and Tim Mcmillan.

Things don't add up do they?

Perhaps Isaac will return to the thread armed with an abacus to help us do the sums, and also confirm whether or not he (or Tim) has been contacted by Pentagon representatives.

And if not, should it not be at least Tim's duty as an American to pass on such info about "TFT" or "Cometa" to the Pentagon? Assuming of course the Pentagon takes any of this business seriously.

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: mirageman

Do we all have to still pretend that Lil Tim didn't rejoin the family firm.

LOL!

Why would all be pretending that now?

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Perhaps Isaac will return to the thread armed with an abacus to help us do the sums, and also confirm whether or not he (or Tim) has been contacted by Pentagon representatives.

Smoke signals were already sent CB. I guess we are still waiting for Isaac to appear?

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit

originally posted by: mirageman

But the US Navy waited 4 days to check it out. Then did nothing when their F18s returned to the carrier with a story.

And despite advanced notice of alleged unusual activity, Fravor and Co couldn't be bothered to switch on their cameras during the first flight out to investigate? That aspect has never made sense since the story broke.

I've recently watched videos by thunderf00t analyzing the three videos released by TTSA, then the pentagon, and while he's a smart guy who knows some things, Mick West is better at it and presents his findings much more succinctly. Thunderf00t's videos are very long because he can't resist making fun of things he thinks are stupid at every step, and I recommend Mick West's videos instead, but still I thought this was funny from thunderf00t's video, relevant to that point, where he justifiably makes fun of Fravor's failure to operate his camera.

Pentagon officially released 'UFO' videos: BUSTED (Part 3)

Time Index 16:07


At the beginning of that video, thunderf00t also rakes Michio Kaku over the coals for his crazy talk about "burden of proof has shifted" in relation to the amazing things the pentagon's UFO videos show. Kaku doesn't seem to realize the videos show nothing amazing so while Kaku has been going off the rails for years, I think he's completely lost it. It's really sad when scientists who should be debunking this crap fall for it. Metabunk had a separate thread about that:

Why Michio Kaku is wrong about the UFO Burden of Proof & Navy Videos
It looks like the Kaku video referenced in the metabunk thread got removed from youtube, but you can still hear the Kaku clips at the beginning of the thunderf00t video.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
And if not, should it not be at least Tim's duty as an American to pass on such info about "TFT" or "Cometa" to the Pentagon? Assuming of course the Pentagon takes any of this business seriously.

One question that occurs to me is whether someone might have actually been doing their duty, and following orders by leaking a boring video. After reading the slides in Snowden's leak showing UFOs such as mylar party balloons, "blurds" and a hubcap thrown in the air, it wouldn't seem to be inconsistent with intelligence strategies to show some mundane "UFO" photo or video and accompany it with some kind of amazing story that Fravor's camera was a potato so all we got was this boring nothingburger video. You know, this Snowden leak:


Slides in Snowden's latest leak are fake UFO images used to deliberately spread misinformation
Whether that was the original intent or not I'm not sure, but I feel like we've been fed an endless stream of nonsense since TTSA released those three stupid videos, by a firm heavy with intelligence folks, and I find it really hard to believe Chris Mellon really believes even half the completely nonsensical things he says defending those videos.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Admittedly, I'm not very knowledgeable or current in this material but my opinion - from the distant outside squinting to see in - is that this entire TDL, TTSA, ATS, Tic-Tac, Navy video leak is little more than a clumsy example of the oft-cited Snowden reveal. Or maybe not so much clumsy as half-hearted. I get the impression of a weak probing fire, feeling out the opposition, looking for weak spots in the line.
Or maybe a better comparison would be a farmer with unlimited resources haphazardly strewing seeds across an unfamiliar field. Not with thought of immediate harvest but to properly match seed and soil for future planting on a much grander scale. I'm a former soldier, not a farmer so, please, work with me.
Also, I think it's important to keep this saga firmly within chrono-sociological context, including events that may seem barely peripheral to the core message. That message being (per my blurry view): American military might stands bravely between hostile ultra-advanced Whozits and us helpless little meat muppets.
One such event with no apparent relation (other than proximity in time and space) preceded just such a disorderly scattering of seeds while still managing to slam home how truly vulnerable we truly are, even in large groups. Or especially in large groups. Nothing shatters one's sense of security like watching the strength-in-numbers truism die in a hail of lead. And this in a city indelibly linked with unavoidable surveillance and impenetrable security.
And MIC influence...
And otherworldly phenomena...
And thinly-veiled (or celebrated) links between those two...
I'm almost certainly reaching when I admit that, to me, TTSA sputtering into existence when and where it did just struck me as a bit... intentional? even if a bit haphazard.
As the saying goes, timing is everything.

originally posted by: mirageman
If this was a real and unknown threat of any kind does anyone believe that the US Navy is telling the truth about this?

Has the US Navy stated that they consider these events to be a 'real and unknownthreat'? If not, I don't see how any of this brings into question their competency. If they never considered such events as threatening why would they have responded any differently than they did? Is it incompetence for the command structure to fail to explain to those under it's command why they didn't consider it a threat? I don't know, maybe, but we have one 'leak' of a video and one very talkative pilot out of 5000 you say? That seems like a fairly tight ship to me.

originally posted by: mirageman
Strange how, 11 year later in 2015, we have an investigation involving the poster boy of the Nimitz case. Just before this article was written. The author, Paco Chierici, has confirmed more details in other interviews. One hinting that he was visited by ONI agents and appears to have acquired the report from someone linked to AATIP.

It seems to me that ONI, while not interested in the events themselves were, quite appropriately, interested in a video of the events being 'illegally' copied and downloaded onto the internet, hence the 2009 'investigation'.

That 'official' reports are being made public through unofficial means however does not ring true. On the one hand it could suggest that the Navy has nothing to hide (or lose) and is quite happy to have these discussions take place in a public forum but do not want to be associated or drawn into those discussions (which further suggests that they do not in any way shape or form percieve a 'threat'). On the other hand, someone is holding the spoon and stirring the pot, why not the Navy, it wouldn't be the first time they've been found arm deep in this #.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
After reading the slides in Snowden's leak showing UFOs such as mylar party balloons, "blurds" and a hubcap thrown in the air, it wouldn't seem to be inconsistent with intelligence strategies to show some mundane "UFO" photo or video and accompany it with some kind of amazing story that Fravor's camera was a potato so all we got was this boring nothingburger video. You know, this Snowden leak:

Slides in Snowden's latest leak are fake UFO images used to deliberately spread misinformation

The daily mail article in your link carries the headline:

”Slides are fake UFO images used to deliberately spread misinformation, claims expert”

To investigate this ‘expert’s’ claim I studied the slide set that was referenced. I found no evidence of “fake UFO images used to deliberately spread misinformation”.

In the slide set, a training program is presented to introduce people from the IC community to different techniques of deception and influencing (the training program elements are shown in slide 12). Maybe the British IC people came to advertise their training program, trying to recruit candidates overseas, or maybe they were just sharing information.

The rest of the slide set illustrates this training program with generic public pictures and generic psychological models unrelated to any intelligence operation. Nothing about any specific covert deception operation is presented. The whole presentation simply seems to be a generic introduction into various deception and influencing techniques – an introduction that anyone could have compiled using only the internet.

So, what are UFO pictures doing amidst examples of industrial design and commercial logo’s?

The UFO pictures are part of a number of slides on priming, using visual associations. Priming is defined by Wikipedia as:

Priming is a phenomenon whereby exposure to one stimulus influences a response to a subsequent stimulus, without conscious guidance or intention

Priming is one of the influencing techniques illustrated in the slide set.

Slide 33 contains a picture directly copied from an on-line article about priming in whole foods markets.
Slides 34-36 contain the three UFO pictures.
Slide 37 contains two further commercial examples of unconscious visual associations.

The simplest and most logical explanation of the three UFO pictures is that they are used as an example of priming. By looking at the first UFO picture, the audience is primed to see UFO’s in the pictures that follow as well, and they do not recognize the seagull as such anymore.

Now, does that mean the first picture is a picture of a real UFO? Maybe. But I think the ‘expert’ claiming “fake UFO images are used to deliberately spread misinformation” got a bit carried away by his own conspiracy theory.

a reply to: Guest101

Bringing some context. Much appreciated.


What’s your take on Fravor and his account? Any thoughts on Paco and his 2015 article; and/or the report that was — ostensibly — carried out by ONI?

Cheers

The admiral at the center of controversial notes describing his inability to access a classified UFO research program says the documents are bogus. Furthermore, he says the alleged author of those notes, physicist Dr. Eric Davis, never interviewed him.

Admiral Wilson pours cold water on the Wilson Documents:

De Void: Eric Who?

a reply to: coursecatalog

Thankyou CC.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: mirageman
If this was a real and unknown threat of any kind does anyone believe that the US Navy is telling the truth about this?

Has the US Navy stated that they consider these events to be a 'real and unknownthreat'? If not, I don't see how any of this brings into question their competency. If they never considered such events as threatening why would they have responded any differently than they did? Is it incompetence for the command structure to fail to explain to those under it's command why they didn't consider it a threat? I don't know, maybe, but we have one 'leak' of a video and one very talkative pilot out of 5000 you say? That seems like a fairly tight ship to me.

originally posted by: mirageman
Strange how, 11 year later in 2015, we have an investigation involving the poster boy of the Nimitz case. Just before this article was written. The author, Paco Chierici, has confirmed more details in other interviews. One hinting that he was visited by ONI agents and appears to have acquired the report from someone linked to AATIP.

It seems to me that ONI, while not interested in the events themselves were, quite appropriately, interested in a video of the events being 'illegally' copied and downloaded onto the internet, hence the 2009 'investigation'.

ONI would not have anything to do with that. That would be NCIS or Master-at-arms.

ONI is not a law enforcement agency and they really don't do field CI either.

a reply to: Sublant

Yes. You completely misrepresented Musk’s formative years. You said he arrived in the USA with a hobo stick, tramping his way across America with the unparalleled grit to create the world’s foremost space-faring entity. That’s not even close to the truth; you are either willfully ignorant of history or just an irritant antagonist. Pick your poison, but stop harvesting the low-hanging fruit and think more critically.

But your conjecture and speculation on all things juxtaposed to the known facts is, at least, entertaining.

Keep on, keeping on...but please don’t.

originally posted by: Sublant

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: mirageman
If this was a real and unknown threat of any kind does anyone believe that the US Navy is telling the truth about this?

Has the US Navy stated that they consider these events to be a 'real and unknownthreat'? If not, I don't see how any of this brings into question their competency. If they never considered such events as threatening why would they have responded any differently than they did? Is it incompetence for the command structure to fail to explain to those under it's command why they didn't consider it a threat? I don't know, maybe, but we have one 'leak' of a video and one very talkative pilot out of 5000 you say? That seems like a fairly tight ship to me.

originally posted by: mirageman
Strange how, 11 year later in 2015, we have an investigation involving the poster boy of the Nimitz case. Just before this article was written. The author, Paco Chierici, has confirmed more details in other interviews. One hinting that he was visited by ONI agents and appears to have acquired the report from someone linked to AATIP.

It seems to me that ONI, while not interested in the events themselves were, quite appropriately, interested in a video of the events being 'illegally' copied and downloaded onto the internet, hence the 2009 'investigation'.

ONI would not have anything to do with that. That would be NCIS or Master-at-arms.

ONI is not a law enforcement agency and they really don't do field CI either.

I guess I don’t pay enough attention — I legitimately thought your were earnest — because you really are a troll. It was an ONI — ostensibly — investigation. Period. Full stop. A paper trial and all. Many suspect it really was Lue et. al, but that nonsense you just spewed about ONI and it not being a law enforcement agency, and thus would be quarantined off from the investigation because it wasn’t a criminal issue, is duplicity at its finest. Bravo 💩