It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
1) What is the difference between the newly established UAP Task Force and the previous running task force investigating Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?
Since the majority of recent reporting about UAP observations have come from naval aviators, since approximately 2018, the Department of the Navy has been leading assessments of UAP incursion into DOD training ranges and designated airspace. Over the last year, DOD undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for DOD. This effort was an informal task force that I referenced to you earlier. Deputy Secretary Norquist approved the formal establishment of the UAPTF on Aug. 4, 2020.
2) Why did the OSD/OUSD decide to establish a new UAP Task Force superseding the previous task force investigating Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?
The task force was established to meet congressional guidance, including the report directed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Over the last year, DOD undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for DOD in leading assessments of UAP incursions into DOD training ranges and designated airspace. Deputy Secretary Norquist approved the establishment of the UAPTF on Aug. 4, 2020.
3) As the OUSD(I) was also the cognizant authority for the previous UAP interagency task force, was this the task force that former OUSD(I) employee Mr. Luis Elizondo was providing coordination and professional connections/liaison for?
No. Luis Elizondo departed DOD in 2017.
4) What was the name of the previous Task Force investigating Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?
There was no previous formal task force.
See the full article: www.blueblurrylines.com...
Thorough examinations of any incursion into our training ranges or designated airspace often involves assessments from across the department, and, as appropriate, consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies. To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.
So if the sensor jamming was an act of war, what was the outcome? I didn't hear Underwood say whether or not he was debriefed; Fravor specifically said he wasn't debriefed.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
Jeremy C's interview with Chad Underwood here:
Got distracted by what seemed a rough audio edit in the bit where Chad presumably confirmed he didn't get "eyes on" as reported here
The confirmation of sensor jamming shortly before a sensor only (i.e none eyeball) observation of anomalous activity lends itself to the Nemesis theory if anything.
In an interview with Chad Underwood, the Navy pilot who filmed the "FLIR1" UFO video, Jeremy Corbell again asks the wrong questions, eliciting some correct answers (no the plane was not banking) that are irrelevant.
But Chad Underwood also thinks that he did not lose lock on the target until the end, and also thinks that particular loss of lock was due to a motion of the object. This is something that HIS OWN VIDEO disproves, as you can quite clearly see lock being lost multiple times due to camera movements, with lock being reacquired in all instances except the last one. And in all those cases, it moves to the left.
I have confirmed all this with an interview with an Avionics System Technician familiar with similar systems (transcript coming soon). However, you don't even need that. Just look at the video, and see where the bars widen.
I don't know if Underwood is intentionally lying under some kind of orders to spread misinformation for some kind of patriotic purpose to help his country...
Then you have people like Eric Davis telling everyone about off-world tech and UFO crash retrievals. I'd say he's full of it because he'd be in jail if any of that was true.
originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: mirageman
...While am here what was the low down on old Eric and the "Polti.." he took it home or something? then what happened?