Wednesday, January 19, 2022

New Luis Elizondo interview - Coast to Coast - 16 January 2022

Luis Elizondo was interviewed by George Knapp, on 16 January 2022, on Coast to Coast AM. They were discussing recent events, and taking a look at "what next?" I was particularly interested in any new pieces of information. The following are my notes of what was new to me, which I took while listening to the show. 

Inspector General's Office. Their job is to make the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) "run better." Luis said that originally DoD spokesperson Dana White had stated that Lue was running AATIP and it was about UFOs. Later, other spokespersons changed the narrative. People in Under Secretary of Defesne for Intelligence (USDI) were upset with Lue. Lue submitted documents to the Inspector General's office which substantiated his role and findings. The IG office was responsive to his material. They are now looking into Lue's claims about the USDI. The investigation could take months or years. Lue said that during some of that time, he was briefing Chris Mellon on the topic. Mellon took the material to higher levels of the DoD.

Names. Knapp said that he had previously asked Lue the name of his immediate supervisor. Is he still there? Lue replied, that yes that person is still there. He also said there were a couple of other individuals who were not helpful. George stated that he had done a bit of research and suggested to Lue that his immediate supervisor was named Garry Reid. The response from Lue, was he did recognise the name, but that if you can't say something nice, don't say anything. Then, "probably not saying anything." 

A little later, Lue asked George if he recognised the term "r-Space"? It was not classified, although classified work does get done there. It is a collaborative space for analysts in the intelligence community. One of the biggest enclaves there on "r-space" devotes time to UAP. The "cats out of the bag." Momentum is building.

2019 events. Knapp asked were there any attempts to take down and object? Lue responded that he couldn't talk to that. Then went on to talk about the minimum distance one could get to a U.S. warship before it took defensive action. Knapp said he had heard that the U.S. Navy was trying to "snag" an object. Lue stated that we only know about 5% of what went on, and that he hoped to tell more in his forthcoming book.

New Congress mandated UAP study group versus the DoD announced study group. Lue - "maybe only one of them will exist." The USDI which is now the USDI and Security, will create the office within the DoD. "It's my old office." However, its an oversight office, not an operational office. Avril Haines DNI also has a mandate from Congress. She is not under the yoke of the DoD - I suspect Haines will not hitch her wagon to the DoD train. Don't know what USDI will do. The Deputy Secretary of Defense is a smart lady. Don't know if she has a complete picture of USDI's involvement in UAP.

2022. Lue - what I personally proposed and what we are creating are civilian advisory boards - academic, scientific and technological, best and the brightest to advise our senior policy people on this topic. Talking to an individual who may head our academic board. Sociology is important.

Also in 2022, looking at more government involvement. Plus international cooperation - more countries wanting to share their UAP data with the U.S. The question is not are UAP real, but what to do if first contact? There will also be increased media interest in the topic.

Lue also then mentioned the name Jim Lacatski for the first time on air.

Update 20 January 2022. 

I now believe Lue was saying “R-Space” not “Our space.” Found a reference to it at

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/atf/In-VEST.pdf

which refers to

R-Space: https://rspace.dodiis.ic.gov (JWICS)

Thursday, December 30, 2021

The societal implications of astrobiology: NASA and those theologians

 Media interest

The media, both mainstream and social, has been awash with a story that NASA brought together 24 theologians to study the question of how religions would respond to the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe. Many of the articles implied that this was a recent study. It was not.

Rony Vernet

Twitter user @RonyVernet, from Brazil, sent me a link to a relevant 2014 article, which told the original story. It will be worth quoting in full.

"Latest news

CTI Receives NASA grant

The Center of Theological Inquiry (CTI) is pleased to announce that it has been awarded a grant by the NASA Astrobiology Program to convene an interdisciplinary inquiry into the societal implications of the search for life in the universe.

The project is intended to refresh and expand scholarly and public dialogue on this topic, which is of growing interest due to the discovery of thousands of extrasolar planets and the ongoing search for potentially habitable environments in our solar system and beyond. With the S1.108 million grant, CTI will oversee a resident team of visiting scholars in theology, the humanities, and social sciences, that will conduct an interdisciplinary inquiry on the societal implications of astrobiology, the study of the ongoing, evolution, distribution and future of life in the universe.

This inquiry will extend over two academic years from 2015 to 2017. It will focus on the societal implications of astrobiology's current research goals and findings, which will be studied in symposia and vidoe-linked conversations with leading scientists in the field. Applications will be welcomed from collaborative scholars who are examining the concerns raised by astrobiology for the humanities, or pursuing research on societal issues related to the evolution and future of life.

Announcing the NASA grant, CTI's Director William Storrar said "The aim of this inquiry is to foster theology's dialogue with astrobiology on its societal implications, enriched by the contribution of scholars in the humanities and social sciences. We are grateful to the NASA Astrobiology Program for making this pioneering conversation possible."

CTI is an independent academic institution for interdisciplinary research on global concerns with an international visiting scholar program in Princeton, N.J. Further information on CTI's resident program and application process can be found on the Center's website at www.ctinquiry.org. The request for proposals on this topic for the 2015-2016 academic year can be found here, with the online application window open from December 15, 2014 to January 31, 2015."

Further information

27 February 2016

An article appeared on NASA's Astrobiology Program website which announed that the CTI "...held their Winter Symposium earlier this month (February 1-3) as part of a two year inquiry into the societal implications of astrobiology made possible by funding from the NASA Astrobiology Program and the John Templeton Foundation. Frank Rosenzweig ...was one of two visiting astrobiologists collaborating with CTI's research fellows." 

28 March 2016

An article appeared on the CTI website titled "Scientists in conversation at CTI." Mentioned in the article were biologist Frank Rosenzweig and chemist Michael Hect. 

15 October 2016

Robin W. Lovin presented a talk titled "The Societal Implications of Astrobiology: Interdisciplinary Reflections at the Centre of Theological Inquiry in Princeton."

10 December 2019

The Rev. Dr. Andrew Davison posted an article on the CTI's website discussing theological views on astrobiology. In it Davidson states "That makes me all the more grateful to the Center of Theological Inquiry and its funders, for providing nine months across 2016 and 2017 in which to research a rather more extensive book-length treatment of astrobiology and systematic theology than has been offered up to now."


The John Templeton Foundation

Following up the mention of the John Templeton Foundation, I came across an article on their website titled "The Astrobiological Outreach program: Increasing the Impact of a A NASA Supported Inquiry on the Societal Implications of Astrobiology," about a grant made to CTI. Grant ID 58671 for $1,734,613 was made to the CTI for the period July 2015 to June 2018.

Fact checking

Among all the media attention to the 24 theologians claim, I did come across one mainstream media item, dated 29 December 2021 by author Sophia Tulp, which bothered to check the facts as I have done. 

Sunday, December 19, 2021

Deadlines within the UAP section of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2022

Now that the U.S. Senate has passed the NDAA for fiscal year 2022, I want to take a look at the deadlines specified in that Act.



Classified briefings

"Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than semiannually thereafter until December 31, 2026, the head of the office stablished under sub-section (a) shall provide to the Congressional committees...classified briefings on unidentified aerial phenomena."

So, from around the end of March 2022, until December 31, 2026, classified briefings every six months. This, of course, depends on the new office having being established by then. (See deadline for this, below.)

Establishment of Office

"Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall establish an office...to carry out the duties of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force..."

So, at the latest, by the end of June 2022, a UAP office has to be established.

Reports

"Not later than October 31, 2022 and annually thereafter until October 31, 2026, the Director in consultation with the Secretary shall submit  to the appropriate Congressional committees a report on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena...Each report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex." The required contents of each report, are provided in the Act. 

So, no later than October 31, 2022 the first unclassified report to certain Congressional committees.

Deadlines

So, the above are the deadlines which are set out in the Act. 

The Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG.)

As readers will be aware, on June 25, 2021, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, issued a memorandum which directed the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security "...to develop a plan to formalise the mission currently performed by the UAPTF."

On November 23, 2021, the AOIMSG was announced, as the UAPTF's successor. An oversight Executive Committee will immediately "...manage the transition of the current UAP Task Force to the AOIMSG." Further details of this group will be announced in due course, by the Department of Defense. 

The next stage

The Department of Defense will now need to look at the contents of the NDAA UAP section and decide whether or not, to proceed with the AOIMSG as announced, or to amend their thinking to accommodate the much broader requirements of UAP section 1683 of the Act.

I await further announcements from the U.S. Department of Defense, with great interest.

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Vallee-Nolan et al, peer reviewed analysis of unusual materials paper published

Peer reviewed article

The Journal "Progress in Aerospace Sciences" is an "...invitation only international review journal, designed to be of broad interest and use to all those concerned with research in aerospace sciences and their applications in research establishments, industry and universities." 

Volume 128, January 2022 contains an article by authors Garry P. Nolan, Jacques F. Vallee, Sizun Jiang, and Larry G. Lemke. Its title is "Improved instrumental techniques including isotopic analysis, applicable to the characterization of unusual materials with potential relevance to aerospace forensics." The article was made available on line on 9 December 2021. Many thanks to researcher Jonathan Davies for pointing me to this article. 

Contents

The introduction spells out that precisely identifying unknown material is an issue, in a number of areas, e.g. medicine, space exploration, and military intelligence. 

The first section of the article reviews analytical processes which are currently in use, e.g. mass spectrometry and x-ray spectroscopy. The second section "Basic approaches for the initial characterization of unknown materials" reports on the material analysis using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) and Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS.) These determine the masses of atomic components of the material. Other analytical processes are also discussed. 

Council Bluffs, Iowa, a case study



Section 3 "Investigating unknown material collected in the field: A Case Study" concerns an incident on the 17 December 1977, which occurred in Council Bluffs, Iowa. At 1945 CST "...a red, luminous mass was observed by two Council Bluffs residents, as it fell to Earth near the northern city limits..." At the scene the witnesses found an area "...covered by molten metal that glowed red-orange, igniting the grass. Police and fire brigade personnel who attended the scene within 15 minutes all saw the mass, estimated at 35-55 pounds. An investigation was conducted with three initial thoughts in mind. These were, an industrial accident, an aeronautical malfunction or a meteorite (despite there being no cratering.)  After investigations, it was concluded that it was not re-entering space debris; not falling material from an aircraft, not a meteorite, nor was it a hoax.  It was also noted that two witnesses of the eleven witnesses, described a round object hovering in the sky, edged by red blinking lights. 

The retrieved material had three components, namely "solid metal, slag and white ash inclusions in the slag." Vallee provided a piece of the original material for further testing. "...our initial conclusion was that sample components were consistent with a terrestrial origin." A recently developed Multiplexed Ion Beam Imaging" (MIBI) instrument was used which is capable of measuring a broader range of isotopes. Using this instrument investigators concluded that "All isotopic ratios were similar between the samples and did not show any statistically significant deviations from expected terrestrial normal except for 57Fe..." However, there was a suggested conventional explanation for this 57Fe deviation.

Speculative conclusions

Section 5, "Speculative conclusions" includes the statement:

"Our experience with the Council Bluffs case study shows how difficult such a determination can be, even when abundant evidence is collected within minutes of an event, supported by reliable testimony from multiple witnesses and in well-defined meteorological conditions."

The authors speculate about the hovering, round object edged with red lights;  that "Such an object might have ejected the mass of material observed by the other witnesses and recovered by police." They note that "The materials from Council Bluff show no evidence suggesting it was (sic) been engineered or designed. The material would not be expected to form naturally, and has been shown does have unusual inhomogeneity." 

Comments

1. An excellent, peer reviewed paper in a significant international journal, which introduces the topic to the broader aerospace community. 

2. Some UAP researchers might suggest that the paper doesn't go far enough in taking a look at other unusual samples associated with UAP. However, the authors note that:

"The objective is to provide data in an open-source manner so that others might replicate the analytic approaches or divine a testable hypothesis of why and how such materials are deposited or left behind . To many this will feel incomplete or insufficient, but this would be a premature conclusion. In the case of Council Bluffs, however, the data is verifiable...it is only the origin and nature of the material (and the phenomenon in general) that remains open."

3. On page 3 of the article there is reference to one of the Defense Intelligence Reference Documents produced by the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program, namely the one on "Metallic Spintronics." 

4. There is also mention of the fact that the authors are conducting other analyses on other pieces of unusual materials. 

5.  All in all, it is the paper most of us were waiting for. Hopefully, just the first of many similar articles. 

Thursday, December 2, 2021

Eric Haseltine - former NSA - former ODNI writes on UAP

Psychology Today article

A 29 November 2021 article on the "Psychology Today" website, on UAP, is authored by former Intelligence Officer Eric Haseltine, who presents his thoughts on the topic.

Haseltine has been, in the past, the Associate Director, Research and Development, National Security Agency; and Associate Director National intelligence (between 2005-2007,) Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and oversaw all Science and Technology programs within the U.S. Intelligence Community.

Haseltine starts off the article by stating that he was frequently asked by friends, "Are UFOs real?" He says he was totally ignorant on the subject. He admits then, that he:

 "...was stunned when the Office of the Director of National Intelligence...issued a report this June."

After sharing a summary of part of the ODNI report he says, that assuming UAP are real then they represent either extensions of know science or exotic unknown science. He poses the question of whether UAPs could be "a sort of mid air projection that appears to be solid objects?" Perhaps UAPs have minimal or zero mass? Perhaps they are pushed/pulled by directed energy from a surface ship or above from an orbiting satellite? Could they be free air plasmas?

"Even though US scientists don't have directed energy systems capable of moving lightweight objects or forming plasmas that look and behave like reported UAPs; someone else theoretically could have developed such technologies and might have deployed it for reasons we can only guess...We don't know. But, given the Government thinks UAPs are real, someone, somewhere appears to have science that is...out of this world."

Acknowledgment: Thanks to Australian journalist Ross Coulthart for a link to this article. 

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby was asked another UAP related question

 Background

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby holds regular press briefings. On 1 June and again on 4 June 2021, questions were asked about UAP, which Kirby responded to.



29 November 2021

During a briefing held on 29 November 2021, Kirby was asked the following questions:

"Q: Thanks John. I want to ask you about this new UAP office that was created by Deputy Secretary Hicks and announced last week. The Aerial Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group was...

Mr. Kirby: Well put.

Q: That was a mouthful. Was there any consultation with lawmakers on Capitol Hill that are proposing related legislation like Representative Gallego and Senator Gillibrand? And secondly, some former Pentagon officials who had worked on this issue, Chris Mellon and Lou Elizondo said that this is an effort for the Pentagon to be less transparent on UAPs. And I was just wondering if you had any response?

Mr. Kirby: On the first one, I can't speak to pending legislation, obviously. I'd refer to those members. But we absolutely kept members of Congress informed as we fashioned this group together and announced it. And it , it is, to your second question, it is really designed to help us better coordinate the reporting process. The actual reports themselves, and the analysis of those reports. So that rather than getting them sort of piecemeal and ad hoc, as we've been getting them from the services, this is a way to coordinate the input, so that we can - there's a common set of parameters for how to report them and analyze them. And then to assess what we've got, and not all reports are going to manifest themselves in something that we consider a national security threat. So, this is a chance for us to be much more organized in the way we process these reports.

And, as we have, we will certainly continue to be as transparent as we can about these phenomena. And the impact that they may, or may nor be having on our ability to operate.

Q: Any specific commitment to release some data or information on these to the public at some point? And then beyond the briefed to Congress closed...

Mr. Kirby: Yes, I don't have a specific report to to announce today that, you know, on any kind of a frequent basis that we will do. But I can assure you that our intention is to be as transparent about this phenomenon as we can. Again, Travis, understanding that there will be national security considerations that we have to keep in mind, but we'll be as transparent as we can. But not, I don't want you to leave you with the impression that there'll be sort of a regular drumbeat of you know, of some kind of report that gets posted on a website, you know, every couple of months."

Update: 7 December 2021

Travis Tritten, from Military.com, was the journalist who asked Kirby the questions. Tritten published an article in the dated 7 December 2021.  

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

Australian Air Traffic Controllers and pilots report UAP in 1976

Australian government UAP files 

The Disclosure Australia Project conducted between 2003-2008 located dozens of Australian government UAP related files, mostly in the National Archives of Australia. Paul Dean of Melbourne and I have continued to locate additional files and pay for them to be digitized for anyone to view. Two of the files we found, namely file series BP990/1, control symbol 5/113/AIR PART 1 and 5/113/AIR PART TWO have recently been digitized by someone other than Paul or I. I found that there were some interesting "Unusual Aerial Sightings" reports, from Air Traffic Controllers and pilots. Here are the details.



19 July and 23 September 1976

On 8 November 1976 the RAAF Amberley wrote a memo to Department of Defence (Air Force Office) (Attn: DAFI ILO) about two reports of UAS on 19 July 1976 and 23 September 1976. The memo attached a 26 October 1976 memo to RAAF Amberley, from the Australian Army, about the two reports. Both reports were made by experienced Air Traffic Controllers from the control tower of the Army Aviation Centre, Oakey.

19 July 1976. 1730hrs local. Duration 4 minutes.

WO2 L.C. Kearns, age 40, an ATC reported that on a fine, mainly clear day, to the south-west at approximately 40 degrees elevation, he saw at around 7000 feet AMSL, an object which passed over the control tower. It was last observed at 20 degrees elevation to the north-east. It was a very bright light of constant intensity, on a flat trajectory from west to north-east which passed directly over the Oakey control tower. Sargent T. W. Matthews also saw it. There was no interference with radio or navigation. The object had no "trail" attached to it. Ground temperature was 15 degree C; 51% humidity; 1/8 Ac cloud cover. Surface wind was from 090 deg. 9 kts. visibility 65km. At 5,000 feet wind was 12 kts. from 160 degrees. At 10,000 feet 4kts from 180 degrees.

23 September 1976. 0958hrs local. Duration 20 seconds.

WO2 L.C. Kearns was again an ATC at Oakey. In a fine, clear sky, apart from  Cu bands to the north-east at 15-20NM, he saw a large, oval shaped object, metallic silver in color, moving at very high speed, with no contrail or "tail." It was on a flat trajectory. It was first seen at 20 degrees elevation in the East-south-east at an estimated distance of 3-5NM at 5,500 feet AMSL. Last seen at 20 degrees elevation north-east. WO2 K. J. Bradley also saw the object for part of the time. Amberley had no aircraft in the area. Brisbane control radar detected nothing. There was no interferences to radio or navigation.

4 November 1976. Evening

A 16 November 1976 memo from RAAF Amberley to the Department of Defence (Air Force Office) (Attn: DAFI ILO) reported as follows:

"1. The following reports were passed to the Orderly Officer at Amberley by the Senior Area Approach Controller (SAAC) Brisbane airport on the night of 4NOV76.

Report 1: The duty controller at Coolangatta Tower whilst watching an aircraft on approach noted what appeared to be another set of navigation lights. After confirming that no other aircraft was in the area, he viewed the object through binoculars. It appeared to be a light changing from red to green and back, stationary on the 200 degree E CLG and estimated range in excess of 30NM. The object was about 30-40 degrees elevation. Time of sighting was 1900hrs. The controller dismissed the object as "unknown possibly a star" and took no further action.

Report 2: The Captain of an Ansett Electra enroute BE-SY reported to BN control that he had an object maintaining station on the aircraft and slightly to the south-west. The Electra was about 60NM south of Brisbane at this time: 2135hrs. The object appeared to be a light changing between green-red-green. After a while it appeared to move up and down in its position and then departed to the south at approximately 1 1/2 times the speed of the Electra. Brisbane radar had no contact in the area apart from the Electra.

Report 3: The pilot of a light aircraft (a PA-34) enroute Dalby to Orange sighted a red and green object maintaining station on him. The object was in view for about four minutes and then faded from view. Time of sighting: 2140hrs.

Report 4: Both Brisbane radar and the Meteorology radar at Eagle Farm reported unidentified returns, stationary, to the east of Brisbane. Initial contact was at 2150hrs. The met radar showed two returns in close proximity; one 070deg/56NM at 15,000 feet; the other 080/54NM at 12,500 feet.

BE radar showed only one return in the same general position. The contact painted about the same size as an aircraft on the met radar, but smaller than an aircraft on the ATC radar.

According to the radar operator at 2200hrs the contact at 080/54 tracked south to 090/53 and faded. The other contact tracked north to 064/58 and descended to 10,000 feet. By 2250 it was at 058/61 moving on a track of 020 at 12 kts. The met radar operator likened the movement to that of a ship, but said they had never painted ships before in his many years of experience at BN.

2. The above info is all that is available. The red-green object visually sighted has been assessed as most possibly the planet Venus, the colors etc being caused by atmospheric conditions. Weather on the night of the sighting was clear with no cloud. The radar contacts could have been caused by ducting of the radar energy painting ships at sea. DOT has confirmed that they had no civil traffic in any of the relevant areas. There was no military activity.

3. Because of the number of related sightings and the not altogether satisfactory example of the radar contacts, these reports are forwarded for your information."

End notes

1. According to the planetarium program "Stellarium" the planet Venus, at 1900hrs on 4 November 1976, as seen from Brisbane was at 252 degrees azimuth, (18 degrees south of west); and at an elevation of 21 degrees. It set at 2057hrs. The Moon at 1900 hrs was at 25 degrees east of north, at an elevation of 51 degrees. 

2. Thank you to the anonymous individual who had the two files digitized at their expense.

3. We have had no other sightings reported by Department of Army ATC, even if they are from 1976.

4. How many more Australian government files relating to UAP are still not listed on RecordSearch?

5. It is a shame, that in Australia, we have no national level reporting process for military personnel. We simply have no ides of the numbers (if any) of current sightings being made by military personnel in this country. 

New Luis Elizondo interview - Coast to Coast - 16 January 2022

Luis Elizondo was interviewed by George Knapp, on 16 January 2022, on Coast to Coast AM . They were discussing recent events, and taking a l...