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

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Sublant

The airforce already had the ground work inherently designed into one of their assets to try the optical stealth thing. Although thats not what it was originally designed for. Hence the air force got the funds.

If you say so. Your clearance level must be high.

My spider senses were tingling for a good reason:

Brian Kilmeade on Fox News - "(Trump) is about to get all the nation's secrets including the UFO news, which we still haven't gotten out yet. And we're about to get that."

Link to video:
twitter.com...

a reply to: celltypespecific

Don't get too excited there.

The "ufo" news isnt about ufos.

Also its some guys opinion on tv. Not some govt statement. I bet the national security chief is not going to give trump all our military secrets.

originally posted by: Phage
Remember that William Cohen speech? The one that "proved" HAARP can make earthquakes.

I read a lot of HAARP threads but I don't remember that speech, so I looked for it. The closest thing I found was this from 1997. Is this the "proof"?:

archive.defense.gov...

Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
April 28, 1997 8:45 AM EDT
...
Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

a reply to: mirageman
Thanks for pointing that out! Very suspicious indeed, and casts some doubt in what we are told.
I thought I read the old TFT posts but I must have done some skimming and missed that.
Or could that be related to the disk sighting being made through binoculars from the deck of the ship, versus Fravor's sighting of the Tic-Tac from his aircraft? I do seem to recall those stories being out of sync. Or was the disc shape supposedly what Fravor saw, before that story changed to tic-tac?

I like the moon landing hoax debunking video where he says the government lies to us all the time about many things.
But some things happen to be true like the moon landing, so figuring out what they say is true and what are lies can be a challenge.

originally posted by: Sublant
USD(R&E) is "extremely skeptical" in 2020. Make of that what you will.

The YAL-1 was already built and demonstrated and it's old technology by now, so your post which appeared to infer skepticism of the demonstrated capabilities of the YAL-1 seemed to indicate a lack of understanding that it's already been done many years ago. It was discontinued because they didn't think they could get it close to heavily defended enemy ICBM launch sites, not because we haven't already put lasers on aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...


Moreover I'm thinking more along the lines of this ECM topic possibly having something to do with some unidentified aerial phenomena, which is a bit different than destroying missiles anyway:

The Navy's Secretive And Revolutionary Program To Project False Fleets From Drone Swarms

Electronic warfare (EW) has become an essential part of military strategy over the better part of the last century. This has only become more pronounced in recent decades as military systems have increasingly migrated into the digital age...

...there are many forms of electronic warfare that don't involve traditional jamming. These include detecting, spoofing, and distracting enemy sensor systems

Or perhaps inadvertently (or intentionally as a "friendly test") distracting some friendly sensor systems too which those without clearance might find puzzling...Fravor said in McMinnville that he thought whoever was flying the tic-tac might get in trouble with his boss for letting Fravor see it because he expected he wasn't supposed to see it!

Even the use of directed energy weapons can be part of a force's electronic warfare bag of tricks.

Although it is the least visible component of a present-day military's order of battle and overall capabilities, and much of the details of exactly what capabilities exist and how they are realized remains in the shadows

directed energy weapons could include lasers or particle beams which Griffin didn't dismiss, since his skepticism was aimed at destroying ICBMs, not at electronic warfare. You could use directed energy to simply create plasma "balls" or "tic-tacs" as an ECM tactic without having to destroy anything.

If to any extent they would use airborne lasers or particle beams as part of this program, there is nothing in the article you cited to suggest that isn't feasible. For one thing, to generate a plasma ball in the atmosphere doesn't require nearly as much power as destroying an ICBM, so the power requirements are much lower. So it really doesn't matter too much for that aspect if Griffin is telling the truth or not, because even if he is, he's not discounting airborne lasers completely, just the feasibility of more practical versions of powerful lasers like the already demonstrated YAL-1.

a reply to: celltypespecific
Doesn't it seem like announcements about forthcoming announcements about things to happen in the future are often misleading or a disappointment? (Especially from TTSA, but perhaps in general too).

I'm at the point now where if they are going to give us some secrets, I wish they would just give us the secrets, not announcements about future announcements about what might happen sometime in the future.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's the one. He was talking about how a claim of a new weapon could be used as a distraction, in particular a claim which was not made overtly, but propagated as a rumor. Imagine that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am waiting for an apology to Big Lue from certain haters on this forum.

At least the great John Greenwald has found his senses and supports Big Lue.

“Although I don’t agree with the Department’s previous attempts to obfuscate the truth, I understand why they did it. I think more importantly than beating up DoD for past sins, we should focus on their new spirit of openness and hope that it lasts this time. DoD still needs to correct the record about a few things but they have made great progress recently so I remain patient and optimistic. As I said before… the truth always speaks, but sometimes she whispers. So let’s keep our ears open and our minds sharp.”

Happy Friday

www.theblackvault.com...

So, The Black Vault asked Elizondo that very question. Here was his closing response:


“I am not sure what this means. It can mean many things. Perhaps someone feels the time is right to be transparent? Perhaps the forces within the Pentagon who don’t like me or what we did in AATIP no longer hold as much influence? Perhaps pressure from Congress, the media, and the public are starting to make a difference? I do think that for the first time, social media and related outlets such as yours, Silva Record, and Post Disclosure are having in some cases an even greater effect on the public than mainstream media outlets. This is a testament to the work you all are putting into this topic. Furthermore, the work that some journalists are doing for Popular Mechanics, etc. are getting the attention of our country’s leadership. Regardless of reasons, we are now witnessing mainstream media actually following reporting from the blog-o-sphere to get some of their leads. I guess people realize that this topic is not so crazy after all.” Nope. Not so crazy at all.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
I am waiting for an apology to Big Lue from certain haters on this forum.

Not "haters" - we're not ten-year-olds who run around excitedly, howling in angst whilst burning blond goatee effigies and bashing our 'Exclamation Mark' keys to dust.

Nah, The Great Zondo is more like a performing clown for our eternal amusement.

Not Hate.

In the meantime, you could do worse things than read Isaac Koi's latest thread if you want to learn a few historical facts about the endless 'Disclosure is Coming!" game.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I like the moon landing hoax debunking video where he says the government lies to us all the time about many things.
But some things happen to be true like the moon landing, so figuring out what they say is true and what are lies can be a challenge.

It's amusing how many "Moon Landing Hoax" fans tend to forget that we regularly went back to the moon until the end of 1972.

Are they AWARE of the Apollo 17 mission, for example? (Even Apollo 13 was a non-news story until the saga of 'Houston, we have a problem" materialised.)

originally posted by: celltypespecific
I am waiting for an apology to Big Lue from certain haters on this forum.

"Big Lue" Elizondo is a liar in this video. Greenewald didn't erase this, where Lue talks about photos of the UFOs over washington DC in 1952.
www.youtube.com...
Time Index 1:30:30
"Elizondo: Unlike Roswell, many people had cameras and were able to take photographs"

Why would he tell such a lie? Nobody took photographs. Some links about the Washington UFO photo circulating which was not taken in 1952:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This link says the photo is a fake. There may be fake photos but the photo in my thread is likely real, the fake or lie part is what Lue and others claim, that it was taken in 1952, it wasn't. Also, it doesn't show any UFOs, it shows reflections of lights on the ground.

Photo Fakery: Washington, DC Flying Saucers 1952

At least the great John Greenwald has found his senses and supports Big Lue.

I'm not sure what gave you that idea. I don't see anything in what you quoted or in the source article saying that. Greenewald sees lots of conflicting information from Elizondo and sources at the Pentagon (as do all of us), and he's trying to get hard documentation to confirm the truth via FOIA etc. Has this statement been retracted by Greenewald?

By John Greenewald, Jr. – The Black Vault – Originally Published December 6, 2019

The Pentagon’s new stance conflicts with former Department of Defense (DOD) employee, Luis Elizondo. According to Elizondo he was the director of AATIP...

In an already confusing saga, the Pentagon continues to deny Elizondo’s role and participation in the AATIP. According to Gough, Elizondo was, “not the director of the AATIP,” and reiterated he had “no assigned responsibilities” within the program.

Back then, Elizondo didn't reply to Greenwald:

Elizondo did not return a request for comment from The Black Vault.

Has the Pentagon now said Elizondo was the director of AATIP as he claimed? The link you posted doesn't say that. I admit it's hard to keep up with the changing stories or lies we are told from so many directions, but the last I heard the Pentagon still denied Elizondo's claim he was director of AATIP. Please bring me up to date with a link if I missed a change in that part of the Pentagon's changing story.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
It's amusing how many "Moon Landing Hoax" fans tend to forget that we regularly went back to the moon until the end of 1972.

Are they AWARE of the Apollo 17 mission, for example? (Even Apollo 13 was a non-news story until the saga of 'Houston, we have a problem" materialised.)

I certainly don't want to send this thread off on that tangent, when there are some very lengthy threads already on ATS discussing the viewpoints of both sides. But the comment that was relevant to this thread was about all the lies from the US government in general and I'll give you the link to that:

Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!

0:55
"The US Government lies all the time about all kinds of things, and if they haven't lied to you today, maybe they haven't had coffee yet"

I think that's especially relevant to some of the wildly conflicting statements from pentagon spokespeople related to AATIP etc, where they just can't keep their story straight, so the concept of a "tangled web" of lies seems to apply. That is also suggested in the Greenewald link that Celty posted.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Im missing all the excitement.

😂😂😂

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Why is it that in UFOland it appears to be lie upon lie. We have Mr Mellon not exactly straight laced and it seems big beautiful lue is questionable too.

A tangled web indeed.

a reply to: celltypespecific

Celty anyone ever tell you youre too easily excited. this breaking news moves the needle nowhere in Lou's favour. In fact im not even sure it moves the needle at all.


Man are some folks going to be shattered when this turns out to have nothing to do with extraterrestrial back engineered antigravitic craft or alien disclosure.

originally posted by: mirageman

Many others have missed this and will continue to ignore it and the other inconsistencies. But they were the very first details made public. Made just a day apart.

The second description sound very much like the SACS, possibly, take 4 foot. Perhaps the first description was of the pay-load. Going back to Arbitrageur's reply to my question about whether there were any naked-eye witnesses...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I suppose that depends on what assumptions if any you make about the Tic Tac that Fravor saw with his eyes, and the FLIR video. Some people apparently assume it's the same thing. I think that is an extremely flawed assumption, and refer to the pilot who made the video saying he can't confirm it's the same object Fravor saw. I would go even further and point out it exhibited none of the amazing performance characteristics that Fravor described, so I doubt it's the same thing.

So aside from the "Tic Tac" that Fravor and the other three pilots in that group saw with their eyes, which in my estimation is probably not in the FLIR video, I don't recall anyone mentioning visual sightings of the objects in the 3 released videos.

So, possibly two 'types' of sightings. One that, captured in the video, could be described as disk-like, maybe, and the Tic-Tac that was reported by Fravor. All of which would then beg the question of why the OP changed the description to Fravor's, and indicates that they may have started the second thread to correct the 'mistake' and redirect the narrative away from the description of a 'disk' - for whatever reason.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That's the one. He was talking about how a claim of a new weapon could be used as a distraction, in particular a claim which was not made overtly, but propagated as a rumor. Imagine that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Is that like the POTUS's new "Super duper" missile that's, like, a gazillions times faster than anyone else's missiles?

Who needs a whole rumour mill when you can just deploy a sufficiently high-profile blabber-mouth?

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Apparently it's all distraction Kilgore - the last thing wanted is for everyone to consider the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis .

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

There is an argument to be made that Reagan's Star Wars program contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union even though there was little of it ever deployed.

Now we have super duper missiles, UAP videos, and patents for things that will probably never exist.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Phage
Remember that William Cohen speech? The one that "proved" HAARP can make earthquakes.

I read a lot of HAARP threads but I don't remember that speech, so I looked for it. The closest thing I found was this from 1997. Is this the "proof"?:

archive.defense.gov...

Presenter: Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
April 28, 1997 8:45 AM EDT
...
Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

a reply to: mirageman
Thanks for pointing that out! Very suspicious indeed, and casts some doubt in what we are told.
I thought I read the old TFT posts but I must have done some skimming and missed that.
Or could that be related to the disk sighting being made through binoculars from the deck of the ship, versus Fravor's sighting of the Tic-Tac from his aircraft? I do seem to recall those stories being out of sync. Or was the disc shape supposedly what Fravor saw, before that story changed to tic-tac?

I like the moon landing hoax debunking video where he says the government lies to us all the time about many things.
But some things happen to be true like the moon landing, so figuring out what they say is true and what are lies can be a challenge.

originally posted by: Sublant
USD(R&E) is "extremely skeptical" in 2020. Make of that what you will.

The YAL-1 was already built and demonstrated and it's old technology by now, so your post which appeared to infer skepticism of the demonstrated capabilities of the YAL-1 seemed to indicate a lack of understanding that it's already been done many years ago. It was discontinued because they didn't think they could get it close to heavily defended enemy ICBM launch sites, not because we haven't already put lasers on aircraft.

en.wikipedia.org...

Moreover I'm thinking more along the lines of this ECM topic possibly having something to do with some unidentified aerial phenomena, which is a bit different than destroying missiles anyway:

The Navy's Secretive And Revolutionary Program To Project False Fleets From Drone Swarms

Electronic warfare (EW) has become an essential part of military strategy over the better part of the last century. This has only become more pronounced in recent decades as military systems have increasingly migrated into the digital age...

...there are many forms of electronic warfare that don't involve traditional jamming. These include detecting, spoofing, and distracting enemy sensor systems

Or perhaps inadvertently (or intentionally as a "friendly test") distracting some friendly sensor systems too which those without clearance might find puzzling...Fravor said in McMinnville that he thought whoever was flying the tic-tac might get in trouble with his boss for letting Fravor see it because he expected he wasn't supposed to see it!

Even the use of directed energy weapons can be part of a force's electronic warfare bag of tricks.

Although it is the least visible component of a present-day military's order of battle and overall capabilities, and much of the details of exactly what capabilities exist and how they are realized remains in the shadows

directed energy weapons could include lasers or particle beams which Griffin didn't dismiss, since his skepticism was aimed at destroying ICBMs, not at electronic warfare. You could use directed energy to simply create plasma "balls" or "tic-tacs" as an ECM tactic without having to destroy anything.

If to any extent they would use airborne lasers or particle beams as part of this program, there is nothing in the article you cited to suggest that isn't feasible. For one thing, to generate a plasma ball in the atmosphere doesn't require nearly as much power as destroying an ICBM, so the power requirements are much lower. So it really doesn't matter too much for that aspect if Griffin is telling the truth or not, because even if he is, he's not discounting airborne lasers completely, just the feasibility of more practical versions of powerful lasers like the already demonstrated YAL-1.

If you disagree with UDS(R&E) then take it up with him. Or if you have a problem with The warzone and their reporting, take it up with them. Don't however assume my knowledge of US military capabilities.

All "plasma ball" etc. speculation is just that, and I haven't said anything about it.
Now I will. That wild speculation does not fit with eyewitness accounts.

a reply to: Sublant

Yes it does.

And besides. He was talking about HEL LaWS type stuff. Not what this is which is different.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

There is an argument to be made that Reagan's Star Wars program contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union even though there was little of it ever deployed.

Now we have super duper missiles, UAP videos, and patents for things that will probably never exist.

Is it a very strong argument?

I'm currently reading Stephen Kinzer's biography of Sidney Gottlieb, Poisoner in Chief, and it struck me that a vast sum of money was wasted, not to mention numerous lives lost or ruined, because of so-called intelligence that the Soviets, or Asian Communists, were doing this that or the other, which we now know they weren't.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Thats the bit I dont get about the "adversarial red herring" theory.
If you are going to set up a fake persona with fake UFO patents, who makes ongoing submissions to IEEE etc...- wouldnt you at least make it a bit believable?

Any adversary capable of actioning such out there physics would also have the intellectual resources to identify the (show stopping) underlying theory rewrite required.


Wouldnt the people who do a fairly good job of stealing actionable intel on adversary technologies get a bit jittery if it got served up on a silver plate with no effort required ....and this time it's a game changer??

As it is....with little or no penetration to wider markets- it looks like it was cooked up specially for the less than 10,000 people who might raise an eyebrow if the patents contained citations to Puthoff (which one does).

It's an awful lot of work if that is the purpose....most of that sub 10,000 were perfectly happy with rotating mercury toroids.....there was no requirement for an apparent all parties agreement on Metamaterials/Polarizable Vacuum/Inertial drives/Triangles as the next narrative.

removed.