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

a reply to: Phage

For those that havent been around for a while, I did look into and post regarding the Islands and the military installations in the area.

You can find that here;
Islands

If you want to be really boring, there was a peer reviewed paper on the effect that is observed around a few islands that explains the swell and wave phenomenon that is observed on this islands.

These Islands where this is observered;
Sicily, San Clemente Island, and Santa Catalina Island.
As for the "Swell" that was reportedly seen, there are a number of undersea reefs in the area and "Sea Swell" phenomenon in the area due to the winds and the islands.

The Effects of Waves on Islands Peer Reviewed

Also of note is this from a thread from 2010 where it looks like a ATS user that was stationed on San Nicholas Islands;

originally posted by: Erongaricuaro

Originally posted by TAGBOARD
I ran across this website about San Nicolas Island done by Naval Base Ventura County:

CNIC Naval Base Ventura County - San Nicolas Island

In the website, they state the following:

1) "SNI maintains a 10,000 foot concrete and asphalt runway that can accommodate an aircraft the size of a C-5."

2) Under the 'Newly Assigned' page, "No one is allowed outside of Nicktown for recreational purposes between 30 minutes after sunset and 30 minutes prior to sunrise the next morning." Why is that?

I spent eight years on San Nicolas Island full-time living there as a federal civilian DoD and retired in 2006. My time on the island goes back some almost 30 years. I can talk about it in general terms but need to avoid specifics in some cases.

During most of my time there were about 20 or so of us "techies" civilian DoD's permanently assigned with the test range and a number of military and contract civilians support personnel up to about 60 or so in number. Some of the roads were tricky and the terrain rough so the evening hour restriction applied to most of those support people who were janitors, cooks, supply people, etc., who were not authorized in restricted areas and were to stay in town in the evenings for safety reasons. My work station, a tracking site, was outside of town and frequently was there around the clock or at odd hours for test operations. Not too mysterious.

Our runway was huge and was an alternate site for shuttle landing but was never needed for that. We also operated F-4 and F16 target aircraft by radio control that were piloted over from the mainland then unmanned for operations around the sea test range then landed on SNI like on a carrier with with arrestor cables. These operations could be dangerous so much of the island personnel were restricted to "Nicktown" during those ops.

A lot of what was mentioned earlier in the thread was done there as well as ops with some of the military's latest whizz-bang toys. For obvious reasons I can't be too specific about those. I can answer some questions anyone might have and can be somewhat specific about many things. We did have some operations go on a couple of times that even I wasn't supposed to see up close and personal when it was on the deck though I did my regular instrumentations stuff with it while flying. I think I am allowed to mention I was primary tracker on the two successful Hyper-X ops when it was reaching mach 7 and almost mach 10.

The OLF SNI patch I still have a couple goodies around like a wine glass and a shot glass with the patch that was a gift at Xmas for our crew. I never gave it too much thought to more meaning, it just depicts the island and some of our instrumentation kind of caricaturized and not much detail. -Eron

ATS THREAD - SAN NICHOLAS

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Sublant
If the Tic-Tac is ours, the submarine fleet has nothing to do with it.

You know this how?

I don't know if there was a relationship between whatever was under the water under the tic tac and the tic tac, but Fravor said he thinks it was related. He can't confirm whether or not it was a submarine that caused the disturbance because he only saw the disturbance, but isn't a submarine a possibility for causing a disturbance as Fravor described? He said it was about the size of a 737 and he was guessing a bit so I don't see how that rules out a submarine. I also don't conclude it was a submarine, I keep an open mind.

TIC TAC UFO : AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE PILOT WHO CHASED IT : PART 1

At time 28:00:

"Knapp: If not for the thing in the water, you may not have seen [the tic tac], so, what was in the water? It wasn't a rock, because when you went back, it was gone.

Fravor: I have no idea. It was a disturbance, something below the surface that was causing the waves to break on top. When we went back, we could not find it. At all.

Knapp: This thing, a rendezvou? A docking? You're speculating obviously but there's a relationship between the tic tac and what was under the water.

Fravor: I think so."

Maybe it wasn't a submarine causing the disturbance Fravor saw which he thinks was caused by an underwater object, but I don't see how you can rule out a submarine being the cause of the disturbance.

You want me to prove a negative?

I have a pretty good idea where the tehnology level for undersea warfare was at the start of the new millenium. The legacy, billets, basing, R&D and capabilities were not there for a "Tic-Tac". Its worth noting we had been losing funding through the late 1990's and every dollar had to be fought for. End of the cold war basically kneecapped the Seawolf program, along with some technical issues, and BRAC made everyones life difficult. Navy was trying to build capabilitites for partially automated ROV fiber optic cable splicing, AA capability against ASW helicopters, submerged drone launch and recovery (NOT the Tic-Tac) and half the people were going nuts over russian supercavitating torpedoes. Among other things. If a major chunk of funding and resources would've gone to more exotic thing like the Tic-Tac, you could see it, even if you couldn't see the end product.

a reply to: Sublant

I appreciate your input and what appears to be your history / knowledge of this area; input such as yours is very valuable in this area.

The issue I find is that most people base what is possible and what isn't possible on a foundation of pure speculation. So I do agree with your statement to a degree; that it is quite likely that the capabilities of these "Unknowns" as "reported" - simply may not have been possible in the time frame in which you reference. The issue is those capabilities have been speculated to exist and not confirmed, so we base any theory on what appears to be "next gen" capabilities of the platform on literally speculation and eye witness testimony.

The videos don't display these capabilities that were reported by eye witnesses and its not realistic for us to expect access to the Spy-1 radar data or any other data from other Navy systems to confirm this either. So Ufology will keep spinning its wheels on this regardless...

I think its important to look for information that can be corroborated that is accessible; as I have demonstrated many times in this thread. People would think me a debunker; that simply isn't true. I think it important to look at what other explanations that are out there that are accessible and then tick them off the list as you go.

The information we do have in my opinion, points to a mundane explanation and not to a new or old platform with advance capabilities. I am not saying that there are not black programs that may show these flight characteristics but we can only go on what we know to be true in the "white world". Speculation means anything and nothing...which is why ufology will never solve anything.

a reply to: pigsy2400

These "Stealthy Affordable Capsules (SACS)" are quite interesting, particularly given that they passed controlled testing in the summer of 2004 and were subsequently cleared for 'open' testing...a Tic-Tac is kinda torpedo shaped...

From the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004

The Navy has funded two industry consortia to conduct five demonstrations in the component advanced development (CAD) phase of this effort. The demonstrations were started late in fiscal year 2001 and are scheduled to be complete by fiscal year 2004. These efforts include: a flexible payload module (FPM); A stealthy affordable capsule system (SACS); processing; a small, unmanned aerial vehicle (SUAV); and, broaching universal buoyant launcher (BUBL).

tinyurl.com...

Mr BARTLETT. What measures or programs are available or could be used to develop and inject advanced technology into the Virginia class submarine?

Admiral MUNNS. The Advanced Submarine System Development (ASSD) program develops and demonstrates the most promising technologies including enablers for lower submarine acquisition and operation costs (Joint Navy/DARPA Tango Bravo Program), sonar/combat systems (eg. Advanced Processing Builds that transistion to Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (ARCI), the Stealthy Affordable Capsule System (SACS) for the submarine launch of joint forces weapons and sensors, hull and deployable sensor arrays, stealth components and systems and composite structural materials (VIRGINIA Class advanced sail).

The Navy is pursuing a strategy of increasing the capabilities of the VIRGINIA Class through the insertion of advanced technology...

tinyurl.com...

SACS and the Flexible Payload Module will allow the users to utilize a common interface between the submarine or ship and the payload, thereby minimizing costly modifications to the submarine and allowing for an employment of a greater variation of payloads. Universal Encapsulation capability will provide the ability to employ off-the-shelf small or large payloads and additionally offers long-term storage capability, variable release depth, and launch-upon-broach or surface-loiter capability.

Having demonstrated the capsule’s ability to carry both large and small payloads, the next step in the development will involve the actual release of a SACS from the submarine USS Georgia acting as a surrogate SSGN during the U.S. Navy’s upcoming SEA TRIAL Limited Objective Experiment “Silent Hammer” this fall off the coast of Southern California.

The first tests previously completed involved the successful launch of test vehicles modeled after the U.S. Air Force Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD). For this most recent test, the SACS was enlarged in order to accommodate the Office of Naval Research’s Affordable Weapon -a low-cost, land attack cruise missile. During the test, the 21-foot, tube-shaped container, housing a model weapon, emerged from the testing pool and loitered at the surface.

www.defense-aerospace.com...(aug.-16).html

Trident Warrior allows the navy to identify warfighting capability gaps and provide innovative solutions in an operational environment.

navaltoday.com...

If you were testing new technology, and it's stealth effectiveness, I would presume that you wouldn't tell the pilots and radar operators etc what it was that you planned to test and what to look for, or indeed that you were testing it because, presumably, you'd want to see if they could see it at all (they 'roleplaying', knowingly or otherwise, the 'enemy).

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

It is interesting isn't it KG, as for the testing aspects of it; I think this is an important part that many forget. Many people scream and shout that testing on their own aviators and naval personnel is something that just would never happen.

What we have to remember is that there was a training exercise going on at the time of the incident. It is quite possible that they were told there will be an enemy BUT what it was, how it operated and how to respond to it effectively - simply wasn't divulged. It is quite conceivable that only those in command would be aware of an "unknown enemy" in regards to what it is - to truly test the carrier group in an exercise, but one in which real world unknowns were simulated.

Would the Chef onboard the Nimitz need to know? - I cant see any strategical advantage to that scenario. Testing to see how defensive and offensive systems would respond - well, it could be argued they wouldn't have a need to know - it may skew the testing and thier response.

a reply to: pigsy2400
Good post and I agree. This is not a political statement, but to clarify, a lot folks who were in during the Clinton years have very negative view of him and the results of the funding cuts we had to go through then. Partially it's not fair, because Reagan years were very good and Bush 1 years were pretty good also. Something was bound to get cut after the end of the cold war. Of course everyone felt their branch or program was one of those you just couldn't cut funding from.

a reply to: Sublant

Many military folk despised clinton for more than just his budget cuts. He was also giving china nuclear secrets in exchange for economic deals with them. And then theres that lear jet that mysteriously crashed in the south full of generals.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Sublant

Many military folk despised clinton for more than just his budget cuts. He was also giving china nuclear secrets in exchange for economic deals with them. And then theres that lear jet that mysteriously crashed in the south full of generals.

This is true. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing good to say about Bubba. The foreign policy blunders and budgets were just some of the things he messed up.

a reply to: Sublant

Not many people remember or know about that jet that went down.

BIG BREAKING NEWS

More info/questions answered by the PENTAGON:

AATIP IS ON GOING!!!!!!!

8) Are the Navy proactively investigating UAP, or are investigations only being done after a reported observation?

A: The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Documented reports of sightings by military personnel form the basis for the investigation process. The investigation of UAP sightings by the multi-agency task force is ongoing.

www.blueblurrylines.com...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

"Not many people remember or know about that jet that went down."
Definitely gave me something new to dig into...

Wait - are you referring to the plane that went down with Ron Brown onboard?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Could have been a humpback. They leave a pretty good sized disturbance after a breech.

Don't think they employ ECM though. So, if it was a whale it didn't have anything to do with what he saw in the sky.

I wouldn't rule out a humpback. It would be a coincidence that it and the tic tac were so close that Fravor thought they were related, but coincidences happen.
Sub-based ECM seems more likely though.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
The tic tac technology is decades old.

I'm not sure what the tic tac was, but if it's based on the technology explained by physicist Tom Mahood, the basic technology is not that exotic, though the Tic Tac would be an application of it that most people wouldn't be familiar with. Based on some of your cryptic comments like that and others, you may be one of the few people who grasps what Mahood is talking about, but I think most people don't.

originally posted by: Sublant
Among other things. If a major chunk of funding and resources would've gone to more exotic thing like the Tic-Tac, you could see it, even if you couldn't see the end product.

I didn't see you stating any objections to the disturbance Fravor saw possibly being a submarine. It seems your assumption is that the Tic Tac was an "exotic thing" that would require a "major chunk of funding and resources" might be the reason for concluding a submarine wasn't involved.

But, what if BASSPLYR is right that the tic tac was the result of decades old technology?
And what if therefore it would not require a "major chunk of funding and resources"?
Tom Mahood described a technology he thought was being tested in the 1989-1990 time frame (which could do pretty much what Fravor described). A consumer version of that technology was cheap and was in most American homes and was being used to display the images on CRT-based television sets, so the tech Mahood describes is in pure concept not that much more advanced than what's in a television set. The main differences are that instead of using electrons for the source as in a TV, you use oppositely charged protons, but the same rudimentary mechanisms for electrical manipulation of charged particles would apply. The main difference is the protons are a lot more massive than the electrons so you need more energy to accelerate them, and instead of firing them onto a screen, you fire them into the air which creates a "tic tac".

Some of the similar tech is so old, you can see it in museums, like the 38 inch long radio frequency quadropole gadget here from the mid-1980s:

Ground-breaking experiment artifact now at the Bradbury Science Museum

The newest artifact in the Museum's collection.

That's actually more advanced neutral particle tech than the charged particle tech Tom Mahood talks about. It's easier to manipulate charged particles than neutral particles, and Tom Mahood thinks charged particle experiments were also taking place around the same time frame as that neutral particle experiment, in the late 1980s. It's a bit speculative but not that much when neutral particle beam experiments were taking place at the same time.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
BIG BREAKING NEWS

More info/questions answered by the PENTAGON:

www.blueblurrylines.com...

When an observed object is NOT immediately identifiable, the Navy/DOD refers to it as UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). The generic term UAP is used in communications to avoid pre-judging the results of any investigation...

As the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) sightings is ongoing, we will not discuss any aspect of individual sighting reports / observations, including frequency of sightings...

Sue Gough
Pentagon Spokesperson

So they call them "UAP" to avoid pre-judging the results of any investigation.
Presumably, the investigations then conducted are able to identify some of the UAPs but perhaps not all, but we will never know because they won't tell us. So much for disclosure, though I didn't expect anything else.

originally posted by: ChayOphan
a reply to: BASSPLYR

"Not many people remember or know about that jet that went down."
Definitely gave me something new to dig into...

Wait - are you referring to the plane that went down with Ron Brown onboard?

No

An interesting Navy patent;

US20200041236A1

“wherein a laser source is mounted on the back of the air vehicle, and wherein the laser source is configured to create a laser-induced plasma, and wherein the laser-induced plasma acts as a decoy for an incoming threat to the air vehicle.”

source

New responses to various questions on UAPs and the Navy at Blue Blurry Lines

Pentagon Answers on Navy UAP Investigations

...........
Are the Navy using the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles, AAV, in relation to investigation of UAP incursions?

A: When an observed object is NOT immediately identifiable, the Navy/DOD refers to it as UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). ...For example, a quadcopter would be referred to as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The U.S. Navy does not use the term “Anomalous Aerial Vehicles.”

.....In DOD, the acronym AAV stands for amphibious assault vehicles. The contractors who prepared the 38 technical reports under AATIP occasionally used the term “anomalous aerial vehicles,” but it is not a DOD term.
............
This response raises further questions, if Luis Elizondo was part of such interagency team as he claims, and if AATIP indeed was a UAP study, as the contractors used the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles? Further questions have now been sent to the Pentagon.

This is gonna run and run as intended.

a reply to: pigsy2400

Articles been out for a week now and as far as i know you're the only one to have brought it to ats attention. Waiting for richard dolan to make a video saying its a preposterous attempt by the navy to cover up and obfuscate obvious extra terrestrial excursions directly in the middle of a navy training excercise.

a reply to: pigsy2400

An interesting Navy patent;

Wow pigsy2400, you're on a roll.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

If KellyPrettyBear were still on ATS, he'd love that patent, loves his plasmas did KPB

a reply to: pigsy2400

Yeah but kev would say they're sentient. I wonder if what the fighter jet is doing is both a scalable process and that the gizmos that make them can be mounted on many, many different types of assets both in the air, sea and land. Wouldn't that be neat.


Hey i wonder how fast atmospheric plasma can be formed on a whim...in milliseconds?....if so, then that would mean you could almost get them to travel as fast and as zany as you please.