Easy, get a physics degree. I already pointed out how the data was clearly incorrect.
Ha, all you did is assert it's invalid without any supporting information. Explain how it's wrong and I will consider your argument.
I already discussed Harvard's Galileo Project lead by experts. Or UAPx, which is a scientific organization studying the subject. NASA is also gearing up to study study UAP, and have argued against stigmatizing the subject as you are guilty of here. Source
Let's not ignore Project Blue Book, AATIP, and now currently AARO, which are/were US government agencies/projects devoted to studying/monitoring UAP.
There's also the UK's historical government UAP investigations, as well as France's studies by GEIPAN (essentially their NASA). And if you want to criticize their legitimacy, consider how NASA regarded the COMETA Report.
Just because all experts aren't taking it seriously doesn't mean none are. So if your criterion for validity is experts investigating the subject, it is met.
This is exactly why I use Semmelweis's discovery of handwashing as analogous to this situation. He couldn't explain why there was such a significant reduced mortality rate from handwashing prior to surgery, and he was ridiculed for his findings by the medical community, and he was eventually institutionalized in an asylum where he died.
His findings were rejected on the basis of preexisting beliefs; not lack of validity or ability to study the subject. This is where we currently are with UAP, where there is a growing number of scientists and experts beginning to lend the subject credence, but there is an overwhelming toxic stigma perpetuated by closed-minded individuals which discourages experts from jeopardizing their career/credibility.
This is also seen in both commercial and military pilots, but more and more are coming forward to share their testimonies. Ryan Graves, one of the whistle-blower pilots, founded the Americans for Safe Aerospace organization to provide a confidential means for pilots to report their encounters.
I'm not ignorant of my ignorance in regard to technical understanding of aircraft and physics. That is why my request for you to actually expand on your argument is sincere.
I want to test my beliefs and modify them in the face of new and valid information to maintain congruence. I am a skeptic after all, whether or not you believe it.
As it stands, I am basing my beliefs off of an overwhelming body of government documents and government/military whistle-blowers, as well as expert testimony.
On the other hand, you are a random internet stranger who has been overly hostile and not countering so much as blanket dismissing what I have stated and cited.
If you want me to take you seriously, you'll have to do a better job explaining how all of the historical international UAP monitoring programs, experts, government/military officials, and pilots around the world are all wrong.
He hasn't had anything to do with the company for years. His departure coincided with the company updating the menu as well, as he blocked all efforts to expand it.
Once he was ousted, they started offering different crust options (stuffed, 'NY' style, etc.).
I was going to link to a recent comment of mine in which I actually state my argument, but lo and behold the post full of negative comments regarding Threads federation is gone!
That seems like some bullshit, so I'm going to share my comment here:
I see many people purporting that users blocking Threads on an individual basis as a solution, but it's not... Blocking Threads will not prevent Threads users' comments in federated instances from showing up.
Even if you block Threads, you will still see hateful, harassing, and extremist content and misinformation.
Furthermore, even if it did block Threads engagement entirely on an individual blocking basis, it is still a failure on the instance admins to adequately protect their users and cultivate a healthy community.
.world admins defederated with exploding heads due to hate, harassment, and extremism/misinformation. Why would they then federate with Threads which harbors the same toxic users?
It's a move to bring more users into the Fediverse, but it comes with costs and risks that do not justify the short-sighted gain of more users and inching towards becoming mainstream.
Threads has been subject to mass amounts of radicalizing, extremist content, and there have also been instances of users having personal information doxxed on Threads due to Meta's information-harvesting practices. [1]
Threads was marketed to be open to 'free speech' (read: hate speech and misinformation) and encouraged the Far-Right movement to join, who have spread extremism, hate, and harassment on Threads already. [2] Threads has been a hotbed of Israel-Palestine misinformation/propaganda. [3]
They fired fact-checkers just prior to Threads' launch [1], however they claim they will have 3rd party fact-checkers next year. [4]
Meta/FB/Instagram has a rampant history of illegal and unethical practices, including running experiments on their users which affected their moods and induced depression in many uninformed, non-consenting subjects. [5] Such unethical experiments could affect federated users as well.
(Edit: As @massive_bereavement reminded me, Meta also assisted in genocide! [6])
Meta/FB/Instagram also have a strong history of facilitating the spread of misinformation and extremism, which contributed to the January 6th insurrection attempt. [7]
If exploding heads was defederated with because of this sort of toxic extremism, why would they want to federate with a platform plagued by that same content? One known for shortcomings moderating it? And one which comes from a company with a long history of unethical and illegal practices regarding users?
Due to these issues and Meta's rampant history of unethical and illegal business practices, there should be no federation with Threads for the well-being of the users in this instance.
I have donated to the .world instance since my first week here, but should they continue with federating with Threads, I will be cancelling my donations and finding an instance that won't undermine the safety and well-being of their users for a boost of (largely toxic) new users and an inch towards being mainstream.
The gains are immediate but minimal, and come at great costs which do not warrant federating with Threads (IMO).
If you don't like it, disconnect.
I agree with your comment, but just have to point out this is where I'm at. I have no interest interacting with Threads and blocking the instance on Lemmy only blocks posts (not Threads users' ability to comment throughout federated instances).
I was about to resume working on growing a community I created and planned on making a few more, but I have zero interest in my communities interacting with Threads.
I thought I found a great new home in lemmy.world, but I'm getting ready to strip my community of all my content and stop my donations to .world. If I wanted to deal with Meta users, I'd use one of their privacy/rights infringing platforms...
I know this is a divisive topic and I'm not interested in debating it here.
Are you purposefully dodging the obvious difference between actual research and "doing your own research"?
What I was citing is an example of how "doing your own research" (colloquialism) can yield something productive and valid when I was sharing my article. I was using that as a example, and comparing it to my brother who "does his own research" (again, we're talking about the colloquial meaning..) and believes QAnon insanity and conspiracy theories about everything.
That is what the original post topic is referring to. Not literal scholarly research as you appear to be stuck on.
What I wrote on UAP is not the equivalent of QAnon crazies. I cited declassified documents from the National Archives and quoted various pilots/military/government personnel.
Your retort here just tells me you read snippets of my UAP article and are not acknowledging most of the information. Kevin Day was the Cheif Radar Operator, and this is a direct quote:
"...Immediately we were thinking: ‘Are these things real? Are they some type of glitch?’ So when we ran a bunch of diagnostic tests and we brought all our systems back up, the contacts were stronger now. That’s when I became concerned about these things and I strongly recommended that we take one of the aircraft that just launched off the Nimitz and go intercept one and go see what it is.”
The pilots witnessed the object/its movements with their own eyes, which corroborated the data from their sensors and radar data on the Princeton. I'm going to trust the concerns of the Cheif Radar Operator, multiple Top Gun pilots from a world famous squadron, and their weapons systems specialist over you and your arrogant condescension.
I guess I should have specified that what I am referring to is the category D UAP (see the COMETA report). I believe that some percentage of category D UAP could be possibly explainable by more conventional explanation.
I'm also not arguing that there is evidence of extraterrestrials; I'm only arguing that a percentage of category D UAP represent intelligently controlled physical objects, which represent disruptive/breakthrough technology.
That does not mean the technology could not be of human origin. But this technology represented in the Nimitz Event outperformed our F/A-18F Superhornets, and that same type of craft was identified on a mass scale beginning in 1947.
The sightings were so prevalent in the 50s that the US Air Force issued a public address on UFOs to the nation.
The reason I don't rule out the possibility of non-human technology myself is because this kind of technology being invented and concealed since 1947 somehow seems even less reasonable to me.
You can disagree with me, the expert individuals' accounts, and refuse to acknowledge the documents from the National Archives, but it doesn't make my argument crazy.
I am simply arguing there is breakthrough/disruptive technology represented in a percentage of the category D UAP. That is supported by ODNI's report as well, in which it states a potential national security concern is that they could represent breakthrough/disruptive technology by an adversary.
Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained "uncharacterized and unattributed," and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis."
I am up for debating the subject. If I am wrong about anything and you have expertise and can share it/information, I'm all ears. Unlike most people, I want to challenge my beliefs and will gladly shift my beliefs in the face of compelling evidence.
There's more supporting evidence of disruptive/breakthrough tech represented in category D UAP than there is evidence of any religion.
And if this is a bogus area not worhy of study, why is Harvard's Galileo Project so invested in studying UAP? Or UAPx? And why was there such unprecedented unanimous bipartisan support passing UAP related bills in the least productive House in history?
I Am The Highway by Audioslave.
RHCP has a lot of great cruising songs too. Some great ones by Stone Temple Pilots as well. Really, I've got cruising playlists, but if I have to choose just one track, it's definitely I Am The Highway.
You have no clue what my opinion is of myself. You're just jumping to conclusions. You talk down to me about being stupid, yet your argument against me is juvenile and half of it is just ad hominem (not valid criticism).
I never claimed to be anything either, so what exactly are you accusing me of being fraudulent about?
What's wrong with the information I have cited within my articles on radicalism and on violence and mental illness? Do you not like the information? Do you have a complaint about a particular source?
As far as your criticism about my UAP write-up, are you referring to the section on the Nimitz Event in which I mentioned some UAPs' movements reminded me of the quantum locking and quantum levitation of super-cooled superconducting? The part where I say that is out of my depth?
Yeah, admitting something is beyond my education/comprehension screams fraud, genius..
The vast majority of my UAP write-up is reporting information. I speculate a few times, but I make that clear and do not make wild claims like you're misframing it to be. I reported information and expert testimony.
Kevin Day is the one who said the radar was confirmed by Fravor's (as well as others') visual observations that day. The pilots said that it wasn't visual instrument malfunctions, because they saw it with their naked eyes.
If you have a problem with their accounts, take it up with them. I truly don't care what you think of me or your petty criticism and insults.
I'll readily admit I'm not educated in avionics, which is why I quoted all of those individuals who were in various roles of expertise.
If your critism is that all of my arguments/beliefs are bogus because it's out of my depth, then surely you concede on the grounds of expert testimony, as in the Nimitz Event?
Or do you think you know more than our greatest pilots and military personnel?
Edit: Just took more notice of this:
Weird that you would showcase a vacuous article as an example of "research".
I would not consider my articles legitimate research, which was not being discussed in this thread. "Doing your own research" is a common saying, and that's what was being discussed here.
I don't know if you're doing it intentionally or unintentionally, but you certainly misconstrued the colloquialism to try to make fun of/discredit me, which is dishonest and a disingenuous argumentative tactic.
If you think I'm such an idiot, you can surely make a stronger case than this disingenuous argument full of ad hominem. You argue like a poor man's sophist.
That is how it works in lemmy blocking instances. I think you commented in another section talking about other fediverse platforms.
I don't think I was clear enough here in that I'm discussing lemmy exclusively. Not other fediverse platforms.
That's good to know. Thanks.
Hopefully soon. The defense appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling, so the next step is the US Supreme Court.
It's worth noting that special council Jack Smith has requested an expedited appeal for his case against trump to skip straight to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has agreed to see their arguments in consideration, and there is precedence for this from the Bush vs Gore election.
Be interesting to see how the US Supreme Court rules in both cases. There is clear corruption/bias in some of the Republican members, but with that so brazenly in the open right now, I wonder if they'll feel compelled to rule reasonably to try to reestablish their legitimacy?
Guess we'll see soon enough...
I totally get where you're coming from in regard to the importance of critical thinking and media bias/government influence.
As for my blog, the references section is how how I affirm it's valid information. I used scholarly sources or reputable publications, like Psychology today, and only linked to media sources when it was pertaining to the current radicalism in our politics over here in the US.
But even then, I personally use independent media fact checkers on the media institutions I cited. Cross-checking what those articles state is pretty easy, and having multiple unbiased/less biased sources corroborating reporting is a decent indication it is accurate.
But as you said, recognizing the validity of citations is a learned skill. Speaking personally, this was a skill I developed academically. I often encourage people to take a critical thinking course at a local community college and I believe that should be mandatory curriculum in high school/secondary school.
That certainly provided me with a buffer to the misinformation and radicalism that I've seen grip and corrupt so many people I know/knew.
Figured I need to point out this is the original below so you can tell them apart:
Project 1794, dated 06-01-1956, was discovered by Michael Rhodes, an archivist for the National Archives who is the last person in the chain which archives previously classified government documents. [1] This was a research aircraft being developed between the US Air Force (USAF) and contracted out to British aircraft manufacturer AVRO Aircraft, responsible for the development of multiple war planes and missiles, operating from 1910 to 1963. [2] It is clearly stated in the Project 1794 report that AVRO attempted to construct the unconventional, top secret aircraft displayed in Fig. 4. [3]
The report contains detailed accounts of how the scale models and components were created and tested in wind turbine chambers. It specifically states in the report the ARVO contractors' intent to go forward in constructing the first prototype aircraft of this design, as according to their contract.
Here is a link to the Project 1794 PDF file in a downloadable format.
Here is my post on the UAP community with a lot of extensive and valid information regarding this subject, if anyone is interested in learning more.
Below are some pages from Project 1794:
My aim here is to compile valid information pertaining to UAP/UFOs from a skeptical perspective, and share compelling evidence that anyone can understand, regardless if they are just approaching this topic with healthy skepticism for the first time, or if they are already dug-in on trying to understand the phenomenon.
For the individuals that will not have the interest or patience to read this detailed information, I strongly recommend this National Geographic documentary: UFOs: Investigating the Unknown on Hulu. The first few episodes are available for free on youtube. This documentary relies on the testimony of verified military/DoD/government officials and legitimate investigative reporters, and the footage used is verified declassified and leaked footage from the US government. This documentary has convinced several entirely rationally skeptical family/friends that I have shared it with. It’s nothing like the History Channel’s outrageous programs on the subject...
Due to the current character limitation on Lemmy, I was unable to fit my entire piece in the post body. There are very important and compelling pieces of evidence in the comments as well.
The term UAP, or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon, is what has been used by the US government in referring to these objects, as the term UFO has a very apparent stigma attached to it. It was originally intended to be Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon, but was changed to anomalous due to the fact that these UAP have been observed operating in other environments; being observed in space as well as under the surface of the water in our oceans and even lakes. Most civilian scientific organizations have also adopted the term “UAP” in studying the topic. One such civilian UAP research agency is UAPx, who have been studying UAP with their own advanced arrays. There is also the Galileo Project at Harvard with the same goal, and they believe they may have recovered manufactured material from an interstellar object (believed to have been aided by propulsion) from the ocean floor off Papua New Guinea. [10]. Scientists and physicists are starting to lend credence to this subject.
While there is no solid evidence (to public knowledge/access) establishing an extraterrestrial origin, there is significant evidence to suggest that the phenomenon itself is very real. While the US government has not identified the origin of UAP, they have confirmed their existence. Whether or not they are of terrestrial origin has no bearing on whether the phenomenon itself exists. It has been well-established since 2017 that the US government had a secret black program called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which monitored/studied UAP, as reported by Leslie Kean and the New York Times in December, 2017. [1]
The videos and information provided to Leslie Kean were channeled by Christopher Mellon (former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence/other roles within the Intelligence Community) and was leaked by Luis Elizondo, who was the former head of AATIP. Luis Elizondo reportedly grew frustrated by the fact that he was never allowed to brief the Secretary of Defense on the UAP material in his office. He stated that he believed this was to shield the Secretary of Defense if ever asked by press if he was ever briefed on UFOs. [2] Unlike what is widely reported, Luis Elizondo had a prior letter of resignation than what has been widely published. His original letter of resignation did not contain any of the language from the second letter that we see published in the media. [3] This does not undermine anything stated in his second, and widely published letter of resignation. [4] I believe it may have been to bide time for the NYT publication. But I think it is worth pointing out that largely unreported fact.
During the investigation by Leslie Kean, Ralph Blumenthal, and Helene Cooper with the NYT, they spoke to former senator Harry Reid in order to investigate Luis Elizondo’s claim that Harry Reid funded the black program. They expected to be met with resistance and denial, but Harry Reid openly confirmed that he had channeled $22 million to fund the program’s creation. [2] Following the NYT’s publication, former pilots began to come forward and provide public testimony on the phenomenon, including the pilots from the footage leaked by Luis Elizondo to Leslie Kean. [5] Which brings us to the Nimitz Encounter.
Kevin Day was the Chief Radar Operator on the USS Princeton the day of the encounter, November 14th, 2004. “I’m the actual guy that makes the identifications. My whole job is to identify stuff that flies.” He reported:
“I noticed these really strange contacts off Catalina island. They were at 28 thousand feet in a real loose formation and they were tracking south at 100 knots. I had never seen anything fly like that before. Immediately we were thinking: ‘Are these things real? Are they some type of glitch?’ So when we ran a bunch of diagnostic tests and we brought all our systems back up, the contacts were stronger now. That’s when I became concerned about these things and I strongly recommended that we take one of the aircraft that just launched off the Nimitz and go intercept one and go see what it is.” [6]
The aircraft Kevin Day was referring to were being piloted by Commander David Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Alex Dietrich of the world famous “The Black Aces” F/A-18F Superhornet squadron. Kevin Day said that Cmdr. Fravor is “one of the best pilots the Navy has ever produced.” They were deviated from their routine training exercise off the West Coast of California for a “real-world vector” (meaning a real-world target to intercept). [7] What they encountered was a roughly 40-foot long white cylindrical object with rounded ends in the shape of a ‘Tic-Tac,’ with no windows, wings, and no obvious signs of propulsion. [2], [8]
The object they were dispatched to intercept had been observed (along with many other anomalous objects) by the USS Princeton over the previous 2 weeks, rapidly descending from 80,000ft to 20,000ft, hanging around for a while, and then ascending back up. [8] (Here is what 80,000ft looks like for reference—the objects were essentially recorded descending into our atmosphere from space.) The object was observed dropping from 28 thousand feet to the surface of the ocean in less than a second, according to Kevin Day. [6]
As Cmdr. Fravor and Lt. Cmdr. Dietrich approached the object, they observed a whitewater disturbance the size of a Boeing 737 and the ‘Tic-Tac’ UAP in a corresponding flight path to whatever was traveling under the surface of the water and disrupting it. [7] Cmdr. Fravor described the object as a “long cylindrical white object with rounded ends” that was roughly 40 feet long, and did not have any windows, wings, nor any observable signs of propulsion. The UAP carried out very fast, erratic maneuvers described as “a ping-pong ball” bouncing between walls. Lt. Cmdr. Dietrich stated that the object “was not following any of our rules” (e.g., instantaneous acceleration, 90-degree turns) and would zip around them at such speed that it was disorienting these Top Gun pilots. [2]
As Cmdr. Fravor approached the UAP, it began to mirror his movements before rapidly accelerating with such speed that it appeared to vanish. He stated that “for something to come up off the surface of the ocean like it was moving around; to be able to just accelerate to match my speed; and then to rapidly go away; we do not possess that technology.” [2]
According to Cmdr. Chad Underwood (former Weapons Systems Officer), when Cmdr. Fravor and Lt. Cmdr. Dietrich returned to the Nimitz: “Dave had his encounter, he comes back and lands on the carrier and goes: ‘I’m a little weirded out. We were out there and we saw this object. I need you to go out to this sector of airspace to try to find it.’ He’s been flying his entire career—over 20 years. When he says something like that, I take it seriously.” [2]
In the Nimitz footage captured by Cmdr. Underwood, we see the UAP rapidly accelerate and break the lock. There is one very important point that is often overlooked in this event. The UAP appears white against the black ocean in the thermal footage. Here, white represents what is colder, and warmer objects are displayed as black. This means that the Nimitz ‘Tic-Tac’ UAP was significantly colder than the ocean. I find that interesting, and that fact in addition to the way UAP shift direction in some footage reminds me of quantum locking and quantum levitation seen in super-cooled superconducting. Here is a short video that demonstrates these concepts. I’ve wondered if part of the movement of UAP could have to do with superconductivity and Earth’s magnetic field, but that’s way out of my depth... I find it interesting that the founder of UAPx has reported capturing readings of UAP at 60 degrees below zero. [9]
When the ‘Tic-Tac’ UAP rapidly accelerated away from Cmdr. Fravor, it ended up appearing on radar 60 miles away directly at their CAP point (rendezvous point) for their training exercise, which was classified and known only to those on the training mission. [8], [9] From the footage in which the UAP breaks Cmdr. Underwood’s lock, the UAPx team calculated that the object was traveling at around 75 Gs [9] and Kevin Day, the Chief Radar Operator on the Princeton that day, reported that the object was traveling in excess of 24 thousand miles per hour. [6]
According to Kevin Day, high ranking Air force officers with Top Secret clearances came onboard the USS Princeton and seized all of the radar and air traffic comms data from the day of the event. [6] Kevin Day stated that had the UAP been hostile that day, “there was nothing that I could have done” and that they would have “kicked our fucking asses.” [6]
So to surmise, there were multiple highly trained eyewitnesses on the ‘Tic-Tac’ object, there was video evidence, and there was radar data that all corresponded with one another to lend significant credibility that cannot be logically justifiably discarded without giving it honest consideration. To disregard this event and eyewitness reports is anti-intellectual. The criticism that the UAP during the Nimitz event was radar and optical malfunctions is invalidated by multiple highly trained observers who visually confirmed the readings. The objection that the UAP captured on video is a bird or animal is invalidated by the thermal reading on the UAP which clearly demonstrates that the object was significantly colder than the ocean. Not to mention traveling at such a preposterous rate of speed that it broke locking that is capable of tracking missiles… It was not a bird.
The Pentagon's Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was mandated to produce a report on UAP, and stated in their report that:
Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation. … UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology. [11]
Of the 510 total UAP reports studied by ODNI, 171 remained "uncharacterized and unattributed," and “some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities, and require further analysis." [11] Not only has the US government confirmed that UAP exist, they have admitted that they pose a serious safety risk to our pilots; both commercial and domestic.
Former Navy pilot, Lt. Ryan Graves is a very outspoken whistle-blower on the subject of UAP, and has now testified both in the press and under oath, as have Cmdr. Fravor and David Grusch. Ryan Graves has claimed that on a daily basis, he and his squadron would see ‘black or grey cubes inside of clear spheres’ which appeared in dangerously close proximity to their aircraft/flight paths, and had no obvious signs of propulsion. [13] Ryan Graves now runs the Americans for Safe Aerospace organization. He has been strongly advocating for destigmatizing UAP reporting and establishing a better reporting system for commercial airline pilots, who have also routinely witnessed these UAP but fear career and social repercussions for reporting the events. [14]
First of all, here is the full Congressional hearing. I cover Cmdr. Dave Fravor and Lt. Ryan Graves’ testimonies in other sections.
Almost all of the discussion recently has centered around David Grusch, but I personally think there is so much other tangible evidence that should be discussed in place of centering the entire UAP topic on one whistle-blower’s claims. Nonetheless, Grusch’s testimony was historic and must be addressed here. David Grusch has alleged that the US government has had a decades long program, run with essentially ‘Cold War’ mentality, covertly operating crash retrieval and reverse-engineering programs for crafts of non-human origin. Grush has alleged that US allies have also participated in this coordinated secret program. Grush has also claimed that the US government is in possession of nonhuman remains from crashed crafts. In addition to theses claims, Grush has also alleged that the UAP appear to have a keen interest in our nuclear capabilities. [15]
While everyone is so quick to dismiss Grusch’s testimony, one important fact is that the Inspector General took Grusch’s testimony and confidential documents Grusch provided seriously enough to launch an investigation. The common objection that Grusch has not provided any evidence is false. He provided confidential information and documentation to the Inspector General, who then launched an investigation on the matter. [16] He did not provide public evidence, aside from sworn testimony. However, he did provide evidence that was not shared publicly due to national security implications. The reason for this can be as simple as not releasing an image or video because it would compromise the confidential systems our government/military uses to monitor our adversaries. A great example of this is when trump tweeted a top secret spy satellite image that disclosed how much more advanced our satellite imaging is than publicly disclosed. [17]
One other very important piece of information that has been widely under-reported is a leaked correspondence between Canadian officials:
A Manitoba member of Parliament wrote Canada’s minister of defence this spring suggesting the country has participated in a secret multi-nation program devoted to “the recovery and exploitation” of material from unidentified aerial phenomenon, more commonly known as unidentified flying objects or UFOs… The letter refers to a "Five Eyes Foreign Material Program" Maguire says exists between Canada, the U.S., U.K., Australia and New Zealand that has been sponsored by Canadian Forces Intelligence Command Canada. [18]
This information, if true, would corroborate some of Grusch’s claims he made during the NewsNation interview as well as testified under oath. I think it should at least give people pause to reject all of Grusch’s claims outright, rather than wait for the information to come out. I think it makes sense to pocket his testimony until it is verifiable. But to reject it in its entirety is counterproductive and an intellectually dishonest act.
There have been multiple whistle-blowers who have come forward to disclose UAP encounters at US nuclear sites. There were two well-established incidents at two Minute Men ICBM bases, one at Minot AFB in North Dakota in 1966, and the other at Malmstrom AFB in Montana in 1967. Retired Air Force Captain (then Lieutenant) Robert Salas and retired Air Force Lieutenant Robert Jamison were both stationed at Malmstrom AFB during the UAP events in 1967, and retired Air Force Captain David Schindele was stationed at Minot AFB in North Dakota during the 1966 event. [19]
At Malmstrom AFB, soldiers on guard reported seeing orange-red pulsating glowing lights hovering over the front gate of the base. The guards stated there was an oval-shaped craft within the lights. Cpt. Salas recounted receiving frantic calls from guards topside while he was stationed underground in the control room.
“He’s screaming into the phone; he’s very frightened; he’s babbling. He says he’s got all of the guards out there with their weapons drawn, and they wanted orders on what to do. I told them: ‘Make sure nothing enters the fenced area.’ When I hung up the phone, I thought we were under attack. By who or what, I had no idea. And then we get bells and whistles going off at our control panel, and we can see the lights going from green to red, all across the board. Meaning: the missiles were inoperable now. Losing ten missiles was a shock. Except for that instance, I never lost more than one missile at a time.” [19]
Christoper Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, stated in regard to the UAP incidents at Minot and Malmstrom AFBs: “Somehow, someway; vehicles were able to maneuver right over those ICBMs and turn them off.” Lt. Jamison recounted: “We don’t know why they went down, and still don’t know. There’s no other reason that I could think of that would cause the 10 to go off of there within seconds.” Cpt. David Schindele stated that “We knew that it wasn’t an ordinary man-made machine, because we had nothing like that.” The soldiers at Malmstrom and Minot AFBs were debriefed and sworn to secrecy; being told that ‘nothing had happened’ and that they were not allowed to speak of it again. Cpt. Salas recounts: “There was a man from Air force Office of Special Investigations. All he wanted me to do was to sign this document stating that I would never speak about this again. Once we signed that document, we were released, told to leave, and that was that. I never spoke about any of this until 1994...27 years later.” Cpt. Salas also alleges that the Air Force lied in their release of information regarding Project Blue book. [19]
There were mass UAP/UFO sightings across the US during the 1950s and 1960s. Due to tensions from WWII and the active Cold War, Americans were observant of the skies during those time periods, fearful of nuclear strikes. There were widespread volunteer organizations of American citizens closely monitoring the skies in an effort to detect potential attacks. [21] The sightings were so widespread that the government addressed the public on the topic and eventually initiated Project Blue Book to analyze the phenomenon. I’ve transcribed in it’s entirety this archived address by Maj. Gen. John A. Samford on "Flying Saucers" in Washington, DC, 07/31/1952:
“I am here to discuss the so-called flying saucers. The Air Force interest in the problem has been due to our feeling of an obligation to identify and analyze, to the best of our ability, anything in the air that may have the possibility of threat or menace to the United States. In pursuit of this obligation, since 1947, we have received and analyzed between 1 and 2,000 reports that have come to us from all kinds of sources. Of this great mass of reports, we have been able, adequately, to explain the great bulk of them. Explain them to our own satisfaction. We have been able to explain them as hoaxes; as erroneously identified friendly aircraft; as meteorological or electronic phenomenon; or as light aberrations.
However, there have been a certain percentage of this volume of reports that have been made by credible observers of relatively incredible things. It is this group of observations that we now are attempting to resolve. Our basic difficulty in dealing with these is there is no measurement of them that makes it possible for us to put them in any pattern that would be profitable for a deliberate, custom sort of analysis to take the next step.
We have, as of date, come to only one firm conclusion with respect to this remaining percentage, and that is that it does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency that we can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States. We can say that the recent sightings are in no way connected with any secret development by any department of the United States. We can say that the recent sightings are in no way connected with any secret development by any agency of the United States.” [20]
Here is what Major Donald Keyhoe, Marine Corps Naval Aviator turned UFO investigator, stated at that press briefing:
“With all do respect to the Air Force, I believe that some of them will prove to be of interplanetary origin. During a 3 year investigation, I have found that many pilots have described objects of substance and high speed. In one case, pilots reported that their plane was buffeted by an object which passed them at 500 miles per hour. Obviously, this was a solid object, and I believe it was from outer space.” [20]
General Nathan F. Twining wrote a memo “Flying Discs” in which he reported that “The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.” Following this report, “Project Sign” was initiated to study UFOs, and would later be renamed to “Project Grudge,” and then finally “Project Blue Book.” [22]
Project Blue Book was operated out of Wright Patterson AFB with the aim of studying, and later publicly debunking, reported UFO cases. They brought on civilian scientific advisors, like Dr. J. Allen Hynek, in order to lend scientific credence to the Air Force’s study. Dr. Hynek was very skeptical and was dismissive of UFOs/UAP in the beginning, but as Project Blue Book continued, he became more convinced of the validity of the subject. He began to notice there was a percentage of cases truly anomalous, and that shared consistencies in characteristics (instantaneous acceleration, 90-degree turns, no obvious signs of propulsion, silent operation). These are the very same characteristics we’re seeing today in UAP, and they look similar to described and documented cases in Project Blue Book. [37]
The Robertson Panel was a group of scientists and experts assembled to assess Project Blue Book reports in order to determine potential national security threats. They determined that while posing no direct threat, there could be an indirect threat from the Soviets in using the mass public interest in UFOs for propaganda/to instill panic. One of their conclusions was that there should be a public education campaign (often accused of being a disinformation campaign) in order to shape the public’s views of UFOs and control the narrative to quell potential unrest. They also recommended the monitoring of civilian UFO groups and to limit the Air Force’s release of information to the public. The panel spent a very minimal length of time reviewing the evidence from Project Blue Book, and they did not conduct field investigations or speak with eyewitnesses. [23] This signified a shift in the approach of the topic by various US agencies, including the Air Force and CIA. Project Blue Book began focusing its efforts on publicly debunking, rather than researching the topic of UFOs.
In 1966, Dr. Edward Condon was tasked with heading a civilian investigation into the most anomalous (publicly disclosed) cases from Project Blue Book. Dr. Condon was vocally a skeptic and had to be convinced to lend his name to the project. Despite the body of the report detailing that some of the cases appear to truly be anomalous crafts and that it cannot rule out that possibility, Dr. Condon wrote the summary of the report, stating there was no threat to national security, likely no scientific benefit to continuing research, and that the Air Force should not be obligated to study the subject. This led to the closure of Project Blue Book, and Dr. Hynek became a vocal opponent to the Condon Report conclusions and a public advocate for studying UFOs. When asked about the conclusion of the Condon report after the closure of Project Blue Book, Dr. Hynek stated: “Well my feeling is that the Condon report was a travesty on science… The Condon committee was unable to explain one quarter of the cases that were submitted and they studied.” [37]
Dr. Hynek from that same interview: “If these things didn’t fit patterns, then there's no way of studying it. But when you get reports from Australia, Japan, France, then you have to say: ‘Well either there’s a virus going around that’s causing everybody to become crazy at the same time, or there’s something to it.” [37]
After Project Blue Book officially ended, the burden of studying the topic fell on the civilian sector, and Dr. Hynek founded the Center for UFO Studies in 1974. [24] Dr. Hynek spent the rest of his life devoted to spreading public awareness of UFOs and continuing to research the subject.
Here is archived audio of Lt. Major Lawrence J. Tacker, who worked on Project Blue Book speaking in interviews on the subject of flying saucers. In the first interview, Lt. M. Tacker describes the Air Force and civilian scientific researchers assisting Project Blue Book as feeling frustrated by the quality of evidence provided to them by UFO investigative groups. He complained that the quality of material presented was not capable of being investigated scientifically (e.g., poor quality photographs, drawings, testimony alone). Lt. M. Tacker acknowledges the existence of flying saucers as real objects, but states that “Actually, we just can’t come up with an answer and say that flying saucers are spaceships from other planets. They’re UFOs; they’re unidentified flying objects.” He acknowledges that people are seeing “flying saucers” but insists that they are not extraterrestrials and states that they are not a national security threat. When asked of those unexplained accounts, Lt. M. Tacker does acknowledge that “Well, we do have a small percentage which are labeled as unexplained. However, the Air Force does feel that if sufficient information had been given at the initial sighting, that we could have explained it.” [25]
The second clip is a debate between Lt. M. Tacker and M. Keyhoe on the subject of flying saucers. When asked by the moderator, Dave Garroway, if he believed in flying saucers, Lt. M. Tacker states:
When asked about his publicized allegations that the Air Force was withholding information from members of Congress and national committees, M. Keyhoe stated:
“We sent a confidential report, when I say confidential report—I mean it was confidential to members of Congress—in July and since then. And this states a digest of the evidence. Now, in this book, Tacker says that all of the Congressmen who talked with the Air Force about this subject were completely satisfied with the Air Force’s answers. Now I would like to mention the letters. I have all letters here and about 50 more in Washington. Representative John McCormick, House Majority leader, says that the House Select Committee, which he was chairman, tried to get information but was unable to do so, and a number of them were convinced that there were unexplained objects. Representative Joseph Karth sat on executive sessions that they tried to get us in the Air Force, and the Air force took refuge in security and said this was involved in the nation’s safety.”
Tacker and Keyhoe go back and forth quickly here and are there are not substantive developments. Keyhoe now attempts to bring up a specific case to elicit Tacker’s opinion. Keyhoe begins to bring up the event and Tacker dismisses the sighting as a weather phenomenon and then denies a statement Keyhoe alleges he made until he nails him down on it:
Keyhoe states that he has a signed statement by the Air Force weather observer who was stationed on the base that day, who attested to there being radar readings. Tacker interrupts and immediately attempts to discredit this Air Force member: “We don’t consider those people experts.” [Chuckles.]
Tacker just tries to blanket discredit all of the individuals involved in this Washington UAP event. The time for the programming then runs out and the debate is abruptly ended. Tacker ridicules the legitimacy of Keyhoe and NICAP. They argue off the air and Keyhoe calls out Tacker for his temper and interruptions, which Tacker denies. The moderator then tells them that they’ve taken 10 minutes out of the next program to allow for more dialogue. Dave and Tacker then debate over the explanation of Venus for one UAP case. [25]
Keyhoe: “Well I wanted to say the whole thing rests on the weight of evidence. Now we have gone into all of the reports which the Air Force has released, and between 1952 and 1953, they were releasing a lot of cases to me. This board of advisors we have include some of the top scientists in the country. Incidentally Colonel, you mentioned Dr. Olivier, of the American Meteor Society. It might interest you to know that the American Meteor Society is a member of NICAP, and so is Dr. Olivier. He does not agree where the Air Force stand and the secrecy.” [25]
Keyhoe then goes on to point out false claims that Tacker made regarding Dr. Carl G. Jung, who Tacker falsely claimed considered witnesses crackpots in his book. Keyhoe points out that is not the belief held by Dr. Jung, who is was also a member of NICAP. He then presents the two letters in which Dr. Jung voices his opposition of the Air Force’s public stance and offers vocal support of Keyhoe and his book. Keyhoe then addresses claims made by Senator Barry Goldwater who was a Brigadier General in the United States Air Force. Keyhoe states: “he said he was convinced that this was real, he has stated so later in the newspapers. He didn’t say what they were, but he said they were real, and that the Air Force clams up.” [25]
Tacker states: “I wanna stress right now that the Air Force does not deny the possibility of these things. It simply states that to date, there is no evidence to come up with the sensational claim that there are extraterrestrial vehicles in our atmosphere.” Keyhoe makes the accusation to Tacker that the civilian scientists under contract are told to ‘explain away’ the events, which Tacker unilaterally denies. [25] But what we know now is that there most certainly were cover-ups and withholding of information from the public. If the word of their top UAP/UFO investigator, Dr. Allen J. Hynek is to be believed, they were tasked with explaining away apparently real objects and events. [24]
Continue reading in the comments.
![[4]](https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/04/unidentified_lue-resignation-letter.jpeg?quality=90&strip=all&w=846){kind=link}
You continue to jump to false conclusions about me, obfuscate things I've said, and ignore other things entirely. Disingenuous argumentative tactics.
The experts I'm referring to are not armchair individuals. I'm referring to the scientists from France, the UK and US who participated in the studies on UAP. Also the scientists in the Galileo Project, UAPx, as well as independent scientists who have been studying the topic.
I'm also referring to the individuals within our government who have participated in the programs or other roles within the intelligence community and have become whistle-blowers (like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon--not referring to David Grusch).
I was completely skeptical and always dismissed UFOs as crazy Dale Gribble nonsense. But when I started to actually look into it, I found enough reason to believe that a percentage of Category D UAP may represent crafts possessing breakthrough/disruptive technology. That's not such a wild belief.
This is a view held by many members of our government, from elected officials to those within our intelligence community privy to information neither of us have access to.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that all of these individuals and government agencies are all completely wrong, you're dismissing the declassified records, and dismissing the clear patterns represented in credible eyewitness accounts (some of which have corresponding data from radar and across multiple sensors).
ODNI stated that there exists concern that a percentage of UAP represent disruptive/breakthrough technology. They also stated that some most likely do represent physical objects (not simply instrument malfunctions as you continue to assert).
I'm not basing my beliefs off crackpots. No matter how much you try to misframe my argument and gaslight, it's not going to work.
My beliefs are based off of declassified government records and the statements made by credible experts and government officials, not bogus abduction stories. It's categorically different from my brother who is unable to discern credible sources.
Even if you disagree with my views, the sources I cited were not some wild QAnon level nonsense. The documentaries I cited were for direct quotes from primary sources. Also, I stayed the hell away from History Channel big-haired nonsense. You're trying to frame it along those lines.
I actually thought that I could approach my QAnon crazy brother with this, thinking it was something he'd like to talk about. But lo and behold it wasn't crazy enough for him.. He began to drone on about all these ridiculous conspiracies about different alien races working within world governments, and also god somehow...
You're wrong to misframe my argument in line with the QAnon conspiratorial mindset. You also just keep repeating the false claim that there are no experts taking it seriously.
Our governments believe there may be validity, seeing as how they have continued to monitor/study UAP. Same for some scientists and even Harvard University. And again, NASA has advocated against people stigmatizing the subject as you are doing here.
No matter how many times you falsely claim that there are merely crackpots and no experts, it doesn't make it true. That is blatantly false.