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

a reply to: mirageman

Well, I was really thinking about FOIAs directed towards the reports, any ATFLIR video or radar tracks of the Nimitz incident. I believe there was even mention about these records being a possible target for FOIA requests from the media from the TTSA people themselves.

I find it curious that nobody has followed up on that. If there is more footage from the two incidents, and it can be requested via FOIA, then I for one would surely like to see it.

I don't have a clue about this process, but it seems a lot of people who have commented on the videos in some form are well versed in this process, like the guy from blackvault.com you mention.

BT

a reply to: beetee

There is a comprehensive explanation of the process here courtesy of Jack Brewer : ufotrail.blogspot.co.uk...

I don't believe that not being a US resident or US national are pre-requisites for raising these requests. But I have heard elsewhere the DoD are delaying requests due to the large volume of requests outstanding.

a reply to: mirageman

Nope. No payments. I work for free apparently.

I do respect the "doesn't care about criticism".

Kev

a reply to: mirageman

lol... never noticed your signature until now!

By the way, I think you can grow your list by at least as many threads if we go back to the olden days of the AMA and so forth :-D

I cannot be bothered to get into the whole FOIA thing at my age, I will simply have to rely on others to do it for me and complain in the numerous available threads on the subject if they don't :-D

Or maybe we should simply ask the president on twitter. Might be more straightforward.

Keep up the good work,

BT

a reply to: beetee

"As for the much touted chain of custody documentation, what is it actually? I can't remember actually seeing this documentation. And why are nobody simply asking the DOD what their take is? Or the Navy? Or, for that matter, the President? Has anybody tried to FOIA the documents from the GIMBAL / GOFAST incident or the NIMITZ incident? "

Here is what I have just written about the "GO FAST" video. It also notes that large numbers of FOIA requests have already been filed, and nobody is turning up anything. "No records" seems to be the word.

badufos.blogspot.com...

a reply to: beetee

And why is nobody simply asking the DOD what their take is? Or the Navy? Or, for that matter, the President?

Oh! they did


Nothing I can find indicating it was 'circled back'.

lol... never noticed your signature until now!

I truly believe that some time in the future every ATS member will have their own thread on TTSA, AATIP, DeLonge, Elizondo etc.

I was tempted to make one on the video above. But that's denying the opportunity for another member to start a thread "Has Trump Circled Back on UFOs?"

originally posted by: mirageman
I truly believe that some time in the future every ATS member will have their own thread on TTSA, AATIP, DeLonge, Elizondo etc.

A chicken in every pot...



Seriously, while fragmented discussions can be a bit of a pain to follow and certainly involves considerable duplication, if we are to get anywhere in relation to these topics then I think they do need to be split up into sub-topics in different threads. There are simply too many issues to realistically cover in one thread.

I mean, we are already talking about:

(a) 3 videos

(b) metamaterials (which give rise to several fairly distinct issues, samples and testing methods/results e.g. issues regarding isotopic ratios)

(c) a government project

(d) the background/motives/knowledge/views/ethics of various separate individuals

(e) previous connections of some of those individuals with each other and/or the Government/Bigelow/NIDS/the Aviary

(f) the aims/realism behind the TTSA company

(g) various book/movie/tv projects

(h) goodness knows what else.


I'm currently struggling with how much to cover in my next thread(s) and whether
(1) to retain at least several of the topics in one item, to show links between various issues/people or
(2) split the content to treat topics separately to keep the length of each thread below that of a book...

a reply to: RobertSheaffer

Thanks.
I've been reading your blog from time to time.
Good work :-)

I'll check it out.

BT

a reply to: IsaacKoi

Seriously, while fragmented discussions can be a bit of a pain to follow and certainly involves considerable duplication, if we are to get anywhere in relation to these topics then I think they do need to be split up into sub-topics in different threads. There are simply too many issues to realistically cover in one thread.

I agree. This topic is a huge expanse of interweaving stories, personalities, organisations, financials and perhaps even sci-financials . It would make a great book and film

This thread encompasses a large number of those topics. But I purposely left out discussion of the video releases as I knew others were looking into that. There is a lot of information out there.

All I can suggest, Isaac, is that perhaps you split any new post into parts with a main title plus Part 1, 2, 3 etc...It's not really satisfactory but sometimes it's better to give people smaller pieces of information to digest before moving on to the next.

regarding topic e

I think the idea of the TTSA and the whole "We build a spaceship" comes mainly from Bigelow, because it appears that he wanted to build a similiar corporation with Bob Lazar a couple of years ago.

The registration for the "Zeta Reticuli 2" corporation is a public record at the Nevada Department of State, which registers corporations. Both Lazar and Bigelow are listed as officers.

area51looseends.blogspot.de...

There are almost zero infos about this corporation, but Glen Campbell said, that the had some ambitious mission statements (imho similiar like the TTSA) like creating new space technologies, working with E 115 and finding a cure against aids.

I remember that around this time Bill Uhouse was approached by some scientist of Bigelows NIDS, because they wanted to know, if he has knowledge, which they can use to build their own saucer.

a reply to: mirageman

If they fail in this endeavor then the gov can claim no connection. It seems like a typical plausible deniability scheme

Also, I think trying to get money from the public may open them up to lawsuits. They probably should have stayed away from this, if you ask me, the money part

a reply to: TheMadScientist2

Well I said in the OP on page 1 of this thread.

In 1989 not long after Bob Lazar went public with his exciting story about working on captured alien spacecraft at Area 51, Bob Bigelow registered and set up a Nevada corporation for Lazar, the “Zeta Reticuli 2 Corp”.

Rumour has it that it was created to research ‘Element 115’, ‘Space Weapons’ and possibly biotech treatments for incurable diseases. Element 115 was the ‘magic’ substance Lazar claims to have worked with and had samples of. It was, according to Lazar, required in the propulsion system of alien craft at Area 51. The company did not last long and nothing ever materialized from this venture. I could find very little else about the purpose of the company, nor much about the two Bobs relationship afterwards.

You'd have thought Big Bob would have remained a lot more cautious after that experience wouldn't you?

I remember that around this time Bill Uhouse was approached by some scientist of Bigelows NIDS, because they wanted to know, if he has knowledge, which they can use to build their own saucer.

Bill Uhouse, if I recall, is the guy who claimed they took the Roswell UFO wreckage up to Area 51 in 1947 in Greer's "Unacknowledged" documentary. Something which would have been impossible at the time if you check facts.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

originally posted by: mirageman
I truly believe that some time in the future every ATS member will have their own thread on TTSA, AATIP, DeLonge, Elizondo etc.

A chicken in every pot...

Seriously, while fragmented discussions can be a bit of a pain to follow and certainly involves considerable duplication, if we are to get anywhere in relation to these topics then I think they do need to be split up into sub-topics in different threads. There are simply too many issues to realistically cover in one thread.

I’m not sure if it helps your efforts but I started this thread over in the ‘ aircraft projects’ forum .

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let us know if there is any way we can assist.

It goes without saying I appreciate your research and organizational efforts.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Excellent thread, Paddy. I've been following it. I appreciate your search for truth wherever it leads you.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

I'm currently struggling with how much to cover in my next thread(s) and whether
(1) to retain at least several of the topics in one item, to show links between various issues/people or
(2) split the content to treat topics separately to keep the length of each thread below that of a book...

Just keep them coming, Sir, keep them coming and thank you.

I for one appreciate the different threads and believe it helps with "saturation" of crowdsourcing.

One small issue: You've been promising a thread dealing with the Aviary and related issues for awhile now and I've been eagerly awaiting it for just as long.

a reply to: IsaacKoi


The psychology here is people like things consolidated---they don’t spread themselves too much. Its best imo to let it all hang out in one thread unless the topics are radically divergent.

The Hill is critical and calls for Blue Book 2.

Everything old is new again!!

edit: CNET ran with metabunk...this is going to be entertaining to watch.

a reply to: 1ofthe9

Ah... another Blue book... that is what we need..

It worked so well the last time.

BT

a reply to: 1ofthe9

From the CNET article:

The video is only a few seconds long. "The Department of Defense did not release those videos. I cannot confirm their authenticity. I don't have any additional info to provide," said Tom Crosson, a spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

From the very sceptical CNET article.

So, the DOD is not very much aboard at all it would seem....
More like dragging a reluctant donkey up a steep hillside.

BT

Don't mean to spam the thread, but I went back and re-read the Nimitz report as presented by the TTSA, and there are a few details that I previously missed when I first read it. I don't know how important this is, but it seems to me that the pilot report is rather more informative than the somewhat lackluster video material.

The report can be found here .

Now there are a few curious details that I somehow failed to take note of the first time I read it through:

1. The female Air Traffic Controller that directed the two F-18 jets to the site where there was an object in the water (presumably) and the Tic-Tac UFO, seems to be somewhat of a mystery. From the tone of the report I almost get the sense that this was someone the pilots were not familiar with, and that when the pilots are uneasy about going out there unarmed due to the obvious "urgency" in her tone, she becomes "directive". So, who was this "directive" Air Traffic Controller, who seems to have the authority to send multi million dollar jets to intercept an unknown contact without live weapons? Is this something ATC controllers usually do?

2. When the pilots get back from their encounter there is no debriefing. Now that is in itself odd, because one should think that two fighter jets who might have seen some novel foreign asset, should be thoroughly debriefed upon landing. Furthermore, closed circuit TV systems aboard the carrier are playing "alien and paranormal" type movies and TV shows (Signs, Men in Black and X-files), in effect making fun of the whole thing. This infuriates the pilots, who according to the report, are at times scared for their lives in the encounter. Very curious. Almost like an elaborate prank.

3. The pilots then lock themselves in the Ready Room, where one of the pilots (OK2) proceeds to make an electronic copy of the gun tape from his F-18 and then mails it to his aunt with the note "keep this because this is important stuff about some X-Files s**t". Now, this is not the same footage that has been released, because that was taken from a second flight of F-18 later on the same day. Which means there is actual gun tape of the encounter from the plane that was actively engaging with the unknown "tic-tac" possibly in the possession of someones aunt.... Very strange. It would be great if the aunt would get us the gun tape :-)

Now, some questions that I find myself wondering about:

- Who is the mysterious female controller with such authority that remains unknown?
- Why was the whole close circuit TV set up to ridicule the pilots upon return and no debrief performed?
- Is it so easy to smuggle out gun camera footage from a F-18 on a carrier that all you need to do is mail it to your aunt?
- What do we know about the gun camera on the F-18 and how good would such footage be? Better than a blob on a FLIR pod?

Some things to ponder.

BT