Friday, June 24, 2022

Canada to seek information on drones and UAP from the USA

 "Five Eyes"

The "Five Eyes" is the name of a multi-state agreement to share information gained from signals intelligence. The "Five Eyes" countries are Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The alliance can be traced back to the era of World War 2. It started with sharing between the UK and USA in 1941; Canada joined in 1948; and Australia and New Zealand in 1956.

The United States FY2022 Defense Authorization Act contained a provision for the establishment of an office within the US Department of Defense, to study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP.) The Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) came into being for this purpose.

One of the mandates for the new office was:

"Coordination with allies and partners of the United States, as appropriate, to better understand the nature and extent of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena."

Canada

My recent blog post about Canada and UAP discussed a UAP briefing, provided to the then Canadian Minister of Defence, and the interest shown by Conservative Member of Parliament Larry Maguire, on the topic of UAP. I wondered if the AOIMSG  had been in contact with the Canadian Government when I read the following?

On 2 March 2022, National Resources Canada (NRC) appeared before a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Resources on the Supplementary Estimates. MP Larry Maguire asked a question on incident reporting of drone and UAP, in or near Canadian nuclear facilities.

NRC responded on 14 March 2022 to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. This response was signed off by the Director General, Directorate of Security and Safeguards. The response was that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC,) Canada's independent nuclear regulator, had advised "...there has been no reported drone intrusion or attempted intrusion at Canadian high-security nuclear facilities."

Further correspondence

Two letters, dated 6 June 2022 are relevant to this matter. These are:

1. John Hannaford, Deputy Minister of Natural resources Canada, wrote to MP Maguire.

"I am writing in follow-up to my May 18, 2022, appearnce before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where you raised security-related questions regarding the Government of Canada's position on drones and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) near North American nuclear facilities.

This is an important matter that my colleagues and I in the Natural Resources portfolio take very seriously. I would like to share with you some specific steps we have taken recently.

Beyond regular collaboration, in recent weeks the Department has liaised with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Transport Canada and Public Safety Canada on this issue. Natural Resources Canada and the CNSC are working to support Transport Canada in developing a strategy to address emerging drone security issues.

To date, there have been no reported or attempted drone incursions at Canadian  high-security nuclear facilities. However, a request was made to fly a drone over a nuclear facility in early 2021, which the CSNC declined. 

Given the shared priority for nuclear safety and safety of nuclear facilities, and the growing interest in UAPs in both Canada and the United States, the CSNC is committed to raising the issue with its United States counterpart, and sharing any related information going forward.

We have reached out to counterparts in the United States Department of Energy regarding the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's Preliminary Report on UAPs to learn more about its perspective in order to help inform analysis and action in Canada.

Finally, Natural Resources Canada has a long-established Energy and Utilities Sector Network that shares threat information  between the Government of Cnada and energy sector critical infrastructure operators. We will continue to use this to gather intelligence on emerging threats, including drones and UAPs.

Kathleen Heppell-Masys, Director General of the CSNC, will respond in a follow-up letter to the six specific questions you asked during my May appearance.

Thank you for your interest in this important safery and security issue."

2. Dr Kathleen Heppell-Masys, Director General, Directorate of Security and Safeguards, Canada Nuclear Safety Commission to Larry Maguire.


https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/RNNR/WebDoc/WD11637088/11637088/LetterDeputyMinisterJohnF.G.Hannaford-e.pdf

"It was a pleasure to meet with you on May 17th, 2022. The information you provided in your March 4th letter helped us further understand the context and nature of your interests, concerns, and questions regarding drones and unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and I understand you raised a number of related issues the following day during a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources (RNNR.)

Before I turn to addressing your questions, I would like to clarify that the CNSC is Canada's independent nuclear regulator. The CSNC is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal that reports in Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources, and  not to the Minister. As such, we will be able to to address your concerns and questions more expeditiously in the future if you contact us directly. As an open and transparent regulator, we welome the opportunity to work with Parliamentarians to ensure their information needs are met.

As we discuseed on May 17th, the CSNC's nuclear security requirements, including reporting requirements, encompass any nuclear security threats that involve an attempted or actual breach of security, or an atrempted or actual act of sabotage, including credible threats made against a nuclear power plant. This would include events involving drones and unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP.) The Nuclear Safety and Control Act, Nuclear Security Regulations, associated regulatory documents and licence conditions outline strong requirements on the part of licensees to ensure readiness to mitigate, deter, and respond to credible threats to regulated facilities.

The CNSC is taking steps to enquire with our licencees about any reported drones or UAP sightings and to confirm that nuclear safety was not put at risk from any related sightings. That includes a letter that I have sent to licensees for high-security nuclear sites.

We have also approached our Unites States Nuclear Regulatory Commission  (US NRC) colleagues regarding the nature of their nuclear security requirements for drones and UAPs and potentially evolving requirements. We will discuss their approach further as it evolves. For now, exisitng nuclear security requirements in both countries are well-aligned.

You had three particular questions for follow-up after our May 17th meeting:

1. Understanding the spectrum of CNSC- regulated facilties; 

2. The length of time Canadian nuclear facilities retain security-related data, including video  footage, and:

3. Confirming with CNSC licensees that no incidents with drones or UAPs have occurred at nuclear facilities since the March 2nd RNNR meeting.

On the first question. Canada has one of the most diverse nuclear sectors in the world. Regulated facilities include uranium mining, milling and refining; nuclear substances processing  and end users; fuel production; nuclear power and nuclear research reactors, and waste management.

On the second question, High Security Site Licensees are required to retain all relevant security related records regarding security events for the duration of their operating licence. Unless there is an identified incident, data that are not related to specific events may be disposed of by these licensees as per their specific security program and managment system program.

On the third question, the CNSC is not aware of any reported incidents of drones or UAPs near Canadian nuclear facilities. With a regulatory lens regarding nuclear security, we have taken steps to confirm with licensess that no such events have occurred.

You raised six related questions to Mr Hannaford, Deputy Minister of NRCan, at the May 18th meeting of RNNR. I would like to provide a response to five of the six questions. On the sixth question which pertains to the CNSC's receipt of your March 4th letter, I can confirm we have received  your letter and have since discussed these issues with NRCan.

1. A lack of standardized reporting requirements for licensees to  report on UAP or drones and no formal investigative guidelines to understand origin and/or intent; and

2. Your request to direct nuclear facility licensees to ask employees and security  officials to ensure all drone and UAP incidents are properly reported.

As discussed on May 17th, our regulatory framework is largely performance-based and not prescriptive in how licensees are to meet safety and security objectives and requirements. Licensees are required to report on credible threats. As mentioned above, I have sent a letter to licensees of high-security nuclear sites asking for relevant information. I will be pleased to update you with any related information received that I am able to share.

Licensees are required to prepare for and respond to any credible threats against their sites or facilities. In the caee of nuclear security events, an investigation would typically be led by the police service of jurisdiction and would be supported by the CNSC.

3. Whether NRCan would support the Chief Scientist Advisor (CSA,) were the Government to direct that she lead a whole-of-government approach to standardize the collection of reports and analysis for undentified drones and UAPs.

While this question was directed to NRCan, the CSNC as a technical and scientific organization would offer its full support to the CSA were she directed by government to undertake such an effort.

4. The willingness of the CNSC to begin a conversation with the US NRC on unidentified drones and UAPs.

As noted above, I have reached out to the US NRC and have concluded that our respective nuclear security reporting requirements are aligned. As noted above, we will discuss their approach further as it evolves.

5. Awareness by CNSC officials of UAP sigthings near Canadian nuclear facilities.

The CNSC has not received any reports of drones or UAP sightings near any nuclear facilities. Since our conversation, we have also confirmed that neither drones nor UAPs have caused breaches to nuclear security, or been involved in attempts or actual acts of sabotage  to the nuclear security of nuclear facilities.

I would be pleased to provide you with the results of our Request for Information  to licensees as mentioned earlier. Please feel free to contact the CNSC directly in the future on nuclear regulatory matters, and please do not hestiate to contact me if you have further questions."

AOIMSG cooperation?

So, this action by MP Maguire has led to Canada raising questions with their US counterparts in selected areas, i.e potential or actual drone and UAP intrusions in or near nuclear facilities.

There have been no indications that officials from the AOIMSG have been in contact with the Canadian government seeking cooperation  to "...better assess the nature and extent of UAP."

One question is raised in my mind. Has the US government approached the Australian government seeking co-operation to "...better assess the nature and extent of UAP"? An FOIA request will be submitted to the Australian Department of Defence to pose just this question. 

Thursday, June 23, 2022

The continuing search for Australian government documents concerning the 6 April 1966, Westall event

A report by Paul Dean, Shane Ryan, and Keith Basterfield 

Background

Many UAP researchers have spent time searching for references to the 6 April 1966 UAP event at Westall, Melbourne, Australia, in the files of the Australian government. The only reference we know about, was in a lengthy letter from a private individual to the Australian Department of Defence (DOD). In that letter, the individual posed a number of questions, and one was about Westall. The resultant response from the DOD did not answer many of the questions, and did not refer to Westall at all.

What researchers have more recently been looking for, is an official report which sets out what really happened that day. From numerous witnesses who were there at the time, we know that government officials told students and at least one teacher, not to talk about the event. We also know from members of the family, of a then senior officer of the former Australian government Department of Supply (DOS) that he wrote an official report on the incident. No one has ever found a copy of this report. In short, we can say that no-one has ever been able to locate any Australian government document that tells us exactly what occurred that day.

Department of Supply

An example of a DOS UAP file cover

Because of what we have learnt from our own research,  and what Australian investigative journalist Ross Coulthart wrote in his book "In Plain Sight," the recent focus of the search for references to Westall in Australian government files, has been on files generated by the DOS; in particular the Division which dealt with aircraft, and guided weapons. None of the known, and available, DOS files has been found to mention Westall. 

Image courtesy of Amazon Books

A three year search

Three years ago, we decided to look for previously unknown and unreleased DOS files, held by the National Archives of Australia (NAA.) We found a file series, MP1899/1  which seemed likely to have relevance to our search. However, none of the individual files from the series was listed on the NAA's database, called "RecordSearch."

A trip was then made, to the Melbourne office of the NAA, and there we located a hard copy "finding aid" listing the files in the series MP1899/1. This list of file control symbols and titles, was generated by the DOS when they transferred the files to the NAA. We looked through this list, and selected a small number of files which seemed the most relevant.

Time went by, during which there were a series of emails and telephone calls exchanged with the NAA. However, no files eventuated. After a couple of years of focussing on other research matters, we decided to return to the question of these DOS files. We determined that these files were still in existence and held at the NAA Burwood storage facility. During this process one of us got within 100 metres of the files, but were not allowed to look at them because their status was "not yet examined." Arrangements were then made, with the NAA Melbourne office, for the files to be "examined," and in late 2021 they were registed on RecordSearch. In January  and February 2022, one by one, their status changed to "open." This meant one could order a digital copy of the files (an expensive business) or view the files, in person, at the Melbourne NAA office.

The eight files



1. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G162/105/10. Barcode 1406735. Titled "Monthly report for Minister - 1966."

2. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G454/101/4 PART 2. Barcode 14406753. Titled "P.E.R.T. [Programme Evaluation Review Technique] Monthly reports from regional offices."

3. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G401/104/2. Barcode 14406739. Titled "Miscellaneous classified correspondence removed from project files."

4. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G454/101/4 PART 1. Barcode 14406733. Titled "Programme evaluation review techniques [PERT] Monthly reports from regional offices (1965-1969) A.G. W. & E.S. [Aircraft,  guided weapons and electronic supplies] comments."

5. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G433/106/10. Barcode 14406734. Titled "Australia/USA logistics arrangements estimates of expenditure requirements - A.G.W & E.S. Division aspects."

6. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G162/105/11 PART 1. Barcode 14406736. Titled "Department of Supply - Monthly report 1966."

7. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G162/105/11PART 2,. Barcode 14406737. Titled " Department of Supply - monthly report -1966."

8. File series MP1899/1, control symbol G177/107/3. Barcode 14406738. Titled "Guided weapons and electronic section - AGW&E Division (All states) - organisational matters."

The files are viewed

Credit: Shane Ryan


Due to a number of issues, such as COVID, family matters, and the days when the Melbourne NAA office is open; it wasn't until mid June 2022, that arrangements could be made for us to physically view the above files.

An examination of the above files was conducted on 22 June 2022 at the Melbourne NAA office. No material, relevant to the Westall incident was noted on any of the files. This further deepens the mystery of why no-one is able to locate any official documentation on this event.

Even though this latest search, has proved negative; we wished to document it, to indicate the thoroughness of our government files search for Westall related material.

Sunday, June 19, 2022

"Unauthorised aircraft movement" - the Australian Department of Defence, and UAP

Questions to the Australian Department of Defence

In June 2019 I asked the Australian Department of Defence, through its media section, a number of UAP related questsions, including the following:

"Has the Australian Department of Defence any current guidelines concerning the reporting by Department of Defence personnel, of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? If so, may I obtain a copy?"

 Defence responded:

 "Defence does not have a protocol that covers recording or reporting of UFO sightings."

In June 2021, I submitted another series of question along the same lines, again through the media section, including:

"I am aware that the RAAF devoted resources in the time period 1951-1994 to the study of UAP. In the light of the above, is anyone in the Australian Department of Defence currently monitoring the subject of UAP?"

The response was:

"Defence does not have a protocol that covers recording or reporting of unidentified aerial phenomena/unidentified flying object sightings."

I then reasoned along the lines, if the DOD do not have a protocol for recording UAP/UFO what do they call an "unidentified object?" It seems to reason, that from time to time,the RAAF's sensors such as the Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) would pick up an "unidentified object."

Paul Dean

Several years ago, Melbourne based researcher Paul Dean undertook a search for the term that  the DOD's RAAF used for an "unidentified object." In 2015 this search led him to the DOD releasing two documents under the FOIA.

(1) 41 Wing Standing Instruction (Operations) 3-19 Contact of Interest Reporting procedures.



(2) RAAF 41 Wing Standing Instruction (Operations) 3-15 Unauthorised Aircraft Movement Reporting and Investigation Process.

Surveillance and Response group

Under the RAAF's organisational chart, part of of the RAAF, is the "Surveillance and Response Group." This includes the Headquarters Surveillance and Response Group (RAAF Williamtown.) Here we find HQ No. 41 Wing; HQ No. 42 Wing, HQ No. 44 Wing and HQ No. 92 Wing.

HQ No. 41 Wing has under it:

* No. 1 Remote Sensing Unit (1RSU) (Edinburgh)

* No. 3 Control & Reporting Unit (3CRU) (Williamtown)

* No. 114 Mobile Control & Reporting Unit (114MCRU) (Darwin)

* Surveillance & Control Training Unit (Williamtown.)

No. 1RSU

No.1 RSU's roles is radar surveillance and space situational awareness via a range of sensors, including:

* Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN)

* C-band radar

* The RAAF Space Surveillance telescope

* The Space Based Infrared System.

Contact of Interest

A "Contact of Interest" is defined in the first Standing Instruction above as:

"A Contact of Interest (COI) is defined as any track that matches or potentially matches current 41WG Tasking Intentions."

Unauthorised Aircraft Movement 

 In the second Standing Instruction above, there are two relevant definitions:

(10 UNK Unknown An evaluated track which has not been identified

(2) UAM Unauthorised Aircraft Movement An aircraft suspected of using Australian Airspace for illegal activity.

To be declared a UAM, a track must meet the following criteria:


"a. An IDENTIFIED track which deviates from published flight plans not due to weather, ATC or emergency, or

b. Identified as UNK by the active RCC after all local procedures to identify track have been exhausted; and

c. Be seen to, or suspected to have crossed the Australian FIR; and

d. Arrived or departed from an Australian airfield not controlled by Australian Customs."

Do any UAMs exhibit non-aircraft characteristics?

In order to answer the question, do any UAMs exhibit non-aircraft characteristics, i.e. could they be UAP? I submitted an FOIA request to the Department of Defence on 31 March 2022. My request was:

"I seek copies of documents dated between 25 June 2021 and 31 March 2022 relating to Unauthorised Aircraft Movements (UAM) which have been used to brief senior staff, including Chief of Air, Mel Hupfield where the UAM was either:

(a) labelled "unknown" after evaluation and/or

(b) behaved in a manner where its flight characteristics were outside of the parameters of conventional aircraft,/missiles/unmanned aerial systems. 

For the purpose of this request I will define the words "senior staff" to mean.

1. Deputy Chief of Air Force - Air Vice-Marshal Stephen Meredith.

2. Head of Air Force Capability - Air Vice-Marshal Robert Denney.

3. Head of Air Command - Air-Vice Marshal Joe Lervasi.

4. Head of the Defence Space Division /Force - Air Vice-Marshal Catherine Roberts.

5. Chief of Air, Mel Hupfield."

I received a respons email on 16 June 2022, although the Statement of Reasons PDF was actually signed off on 19 May 2022. I extract relevant portions of the response

"DEFENCE FOI 439/21/22 STATEMENT OF REASONS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ...

5. In making my decision I had regard to...4) advice received from personnel within the Office of The Chief of Air Force Registry (OCAF Registry); Head Air Force Capability (HAC), Air Command Australia (ACA) and Air Force Headquarters (AFHQ)...

8. To ensure "all reasonable steps" have been taken to find the documents in this request, every reasonable avenue of locating the documents has been exhausted. OCAF Registry, HAC, ACA and AFHQ undertook electronic searches of the Defence records management system Objective, and Outlook for records in scope. The following criteria were used to search for documents but were advised by the areas no documents were found.

1) Name/contains/uam/dates/created 25 June 2021 to 31 March 2022

2) Name/contains/uams/dates/created 25 June 2021 to 31 March 2022

3) name/contains/uam's/dates/created 25 June 2021 to 31 March 2022

4) Name/contains/unauthorised aircraft movements/dates/created 25 June 2021 to 31 March 2022

5) Name/contains/unauthorised aircraft movement/dates/ created 25 June 2021 to 31 March 2022

6) Name/congtains/unauthorised aircraft/dates/created 25 June 2021 to 31 March 2022

7) Name/contains/unauthorised aircraft movement UAM/created from 25 June 2021

Based on the above actions, I am satisfied that "all reasonable steps" have been taken to locate the requested documents. "

In short, "No documents were identified as matching the description of the request."

Saturday, June 18, 2022

NASA's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Study

Background

My 12 July 2021 blog article titled "NASA and UAP: an updated official statement is available," drew attention to a 10 June 2021 interview with NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, by U.S. media outlet "Politico."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-administrator-bill-nelson/

In the "Politico" article, Nelson revealed that, as a member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, he was briefed, on observations of UAP by Naval aviators. So, he had later, once he joined NASA, directed a senior member of staff, Dr. Thomas Zurbuchen, to look into the topic.

In my own article, I described then recent statements by NASA personnel about UAP; and the contents of part of NASA's own website, which presented a then current statement about UAP. 

NASA study of UAP

On 9 June 2022 a NASA media release came out titled "NASA to Set Up Independent Study on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena." It read:

"NASA is commissioning a study team to start early in the fall to examine Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) - that is, observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena - from a scientific perspective. The study will focus on identifying available data, how best to collect future data, and how NASA can use that data to move the scientific understanding of UAPs forward.

The limited number of observations of UAPs currently makes it difficult to draw scientific conclusions about the nature of such events. Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the atmosphere are of interest for both national security and air safety.

Establishing which events are natural provides a key first step to identifying or mitigating such phenomena, which aligns with one of NASA's goals to ensure the safety of aircraft. There is no evidence UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin.

"NASA believes that the tools of scientific discovery are powerful and apply here also," said Thomas Zurbuchen, the associate administrator for Science at NASA headquarters in Washington. "We have access to a broad range of observations of Earth from space - and that is the lifeblood of scientific inquiry. We have the tools and team who can help us improve our understanding of the unknown. That's the very definition of what science is. That's what we do."

The agency is not part of the Department of Defense's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force or its successor the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group. NASA has, however coordinated widely across government regarding how to apply the tools of science to shed light on the nature and origin of Unidentifed Aerial Phenomena.

The agency's independent study team will be led by astrophysicist David Spergel, who is president of the Simons Foundation in New York City, and previously the chair of the astrophysics department at Princeton University in Princeton, New Jersey. Daniel Evans, the assistant deputy associate administrator for research at NASA's Science Mission Directorate, will serve as the NASA official responsible for orchestrating the study.

"Given the paucity of observations, out first task is simply to gather the most robust set of data that we can," said Spergel. "We will be identifying what data - from civilians, government, non-profits, companies exists, what else we should try to collect, and how to best analyze it."

The study is expected to take about nine months to complete. It will secure the counsel of experts in the scientific, aeronautical and data analytics communities to focus on how best to collect new data and improve observations of UAPs.

"Consistent with NASA's principles of openness, transparency, and scientific integrity, this report will be shared publicly," said Evans - "All of NASA's data is available to the public - we take that obligation seriously - and we make it easily accessible for anyone to see and study."

Although unrelated to this new study, NASA has an active astrobiology program that focuses on the origins, evolution and distribution of life beyond Earth. From studying water on Mars to probing promising "ocean worlds" such as Titan and Europa, NASA's science missions are working together with a goal to find signs of life beyond Earth.

Furthermore, the agency's search for life includes using missions such as the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite and Hubble Space Telescope , to search for habitable exoplanets, while the James Webb Space Telescope will try to spot biosignatures in atmospheres around other planets - spotting oxygen and carbon dioxide in other atmospheres, for example could sugget that an exoplanet supports plants and animals like ours does. NASA also funds space-based research that focuses on technosignatures - that is signatures of advanced technology in outer space - from other planets..."

Media Advisory

Also, on 9 June 2022, a NASA Media Advisory M22-083was issued titled "NASA to discuss New Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Study today." This read:

"NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EDT today - Thursday, June 9 - to discuss a new study team the agency is commissioning to examine Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs).

The purpose of the study is to examine UAPs - observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena - from a scientific perspective.

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena in the atmosphere are of interest for both national security and air safety. Establishing which events are natural provides a key first step to identifying or mitigating such phenomena, which aligns with one of NASA's goals to ensure the safety of aircraft. There is no evidence UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin.

Teleconference participants include:

* Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator of the agency's Scientific Mission Directorate (SMD)

* Daniel Evans, SMD assistant deputy associate administrator for research

* David Spergel, study lead and President of the Simons Foundation...

Media teleconference

A teleconference with the three named individuals above, and media representatives was held on 10 June 2022. The following are my notes and a partial transcript of that event.

Hosted by Karen Fox of NASA's communications area, it was opened by Thomas Zurbuchen. 

https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/leadership/Thomas-Zurbuchen

* Part of the task of NASA is to look for life elsewhere. We have astrobiology programs and are looking for technosignatures of intelligent life. The UAP study will start early in the fall.

"The study will focus on identifying available data, how to best collect future data and how NASA can use this data to move the scientific understanding of UAPs forward.

A short way I would talk about that is to take a field which is relatively data poor and make it into a field that is much more data rich and therefore worthy of scientific investigation and analysis."

* We have access to a broad range of observations of Earth and space

* Using the same tools we always use.

"Unidentified phenomena in the atmosphere are of interest for both, for many reasons frankly. I think there's new science to be discovered. There's been many times when something that looked almost magical, turned out to be a new scientific effect. There's also national security and air safety issues that have been discussed elsewhere. That of course relate to those observations, and establishing, you know, with events, whether they are natural, or whether they are kind of, need to be explained otherwise, is very much aligned with NASA's goals.

That ensures, of course that we discover the unknown, but also ensures the safety of aircraft that are in that air space that these phenomena occur. The panel and study will be led by astrophysicist David Spergel who is president of the Simons Foundation of New York City and previously has been the chair of the Astrophysics in the Department of Princeton, and the University of Princeton, New Jersey."

Davis Spergel then spoke:

https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/

" To start, this is a really exciting project. One of the most exciting things in science are things that we don't undertsand. And my starting point, all of our starting points, this is, these phenomena that we don't understand. Then, how do we start to make progress? We have a very limited set of observations right now with these UAPs. This makes it difficult to draw conclusions. So, we start by trying to figure out what data is out there? And we are going to be working with government, non-profits, companies, civilians and try to identify what data is already there. Then start to think about what data should we collect in the future? And how are we going to analyze it?

We actually have a wealth of data about our atmosphere and we observe it from above and below. Whether it is our air traffic management data, astronomers looking up; satellites looking down. And we want to start with just the synthesizing of the data we have, and see what information we have and what information we need. And our plan is to conduct an open inquiry that we hope will advance our understanding, so that when this is done we will, at least, have a road map of how to move forward in understanding in this area."

Daniel Evans then spoke:

https://science.nasa.gov/about-us/leadership/dr-daniel-evans

* Over decades NASA has tackled perplexing mysteries

* NASA is uniquely positioned to address UAP

* Bring the power of data and science to our skies.

"For this study specifically, we plan on bringing together some of the country's leading scientists, aeronautical experts and data practitioners. We expect the study to kick off in the early fall. It should take about nine moths to complete. And I want to make this point emphatically, very much consistent with out principles of openness, and transparency and scientific integrity, the full report will, be made available to the public. And we expect to hold a public meeting to discuss the study's findings, and with that I will hand back to Karen Fox."

Media questions

Media representatives then posed the following questions:

Q1: Washington Post. Will you go into the study with any hypothesis?

A1: (David) - The only preconceived notion is that what we are looking at has several explanations. I have not looked at all the data.

(Dr Z) - My sense is that we don't ever underestimate the natural world. Lot to still learn.

Q2: The Birch. The media release today said that UAPs are unlikely to be ET in origin. Is NASA trying to make a connection UAPs are some sort of alien technology?

A2: (Dr Z) - Don't have any irrefutable evidence for any conclusion. There is an absence of data. Don't know how close we can get to an answer.

Q3: Space News. What process will be undertaken  to pick the team? Cost and source?

A3: (Daniel) - It will be a review panel. Our discretion after wide consultation. Budget - from a few tens of thousands. Certainly, no more than $100K.

Q4: Reuters. Why are you commencing now? What prompted this? 

A4: (Dr Z) - The DOD work is clearly there. Because of the science interest and safety issues. Working on this for some time. Need to set it up the right way.

Q5: The Atlantic. Whose idea was it? Administrator Nelson's? Why will the team be in the Science Directorate?

A5: (Dr Z) - Science is where these questions should be. This approach is mine. Daniel and David give it credence.

(Daniel) - We have consulted with our aeronautical colleagues.

Q6: NBC. Who in NASA has been collecting data before?

A6: (Dr Z) - I am not aware of any systematic or sporadic NASA effort previously. Use AI and ML sifting.

(Daniel) - NASA has not systematically looked into UAP.

Q7: NBC. NASA has thousands of hours of space and ISS video. Are we to understand that you will be reviewing  NASA material?

A7: (Daniel) - What data is at hand? Study looking at what data? Not going to analyze it.

(Dr Z) - The final product. What data we should be looking at? Not going to sort through the data. Make a proposal for a research program.

(David) - Here's the data we have, eg observations from above and below at a certain point. We have experience in tracking anomalous objects; for tracking fast moving objects.

Q8: New York Times. Will NASA get back to SETI work?

A8: (Dr Z) - We have done work looking for technosignatures at the moment.

Q9: Houston Chronicle. The DOD has collected observations from Naval aviators. Have space telescopes been used to look for UAP?

A9: (David) - Not aware of any. No systematic study by ground based telescopes or downward looking satellites.

Q10: Edfield (?) Should UAPs be discussed in the same breath as technosignatures and looking for life on Mars?

A10: (David) - It is a different approach. This is a phenomena we don't understand. No hypothesis going in.

Q11: Space.Com Do you hope to bring the topic into the mainstream?

A11: (Dr Z) - The science process is a valid process for all problems, including this one.

Q12: Aviation Week. Question for David. Will you have access to classified information, and if not how will that limit the study's scope?

A12: (David) - Open study. I do not have a security clearance. Others on panel will. Open data. Open processes.

(Daniel) - We acknowledge the DOD work. We use the tools of science.

NASA opens website for its UAP study

"NASA science: For researchers

UAP

NASA Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Independent Study

On June 9, 2022, NASA announced that the agency is commissioning a study team to examine Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) - that is observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or known natural phenomena from a scientific perspective. The study will focus on identifying available data, how best to collect future data, and how NASA can use that data to move the scientific understanding of UAPs forward. This webpage is designed as a resource to provide updates on the UAP Independent Study.

Public briefings and presentations

On June 9, 2022 Dr Thomas Zurbuchen presented an update on NASA's Science program to a joint meeting of the National Academies Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, which included an outline of NASA's UAP Independent Study.

Principles

NASA leads the world in exploration and is committed to rigorous scientific inquiry. Consistent with NASA's principle of openness, transparency and scientific integrity, NASA is establishing the UAP Independent Study as  means to secure the counsel of community across diverse areas of matters rerlevant to potential methods of study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. The UAP Independent Study serves as a ommunity based, interdisciplinary forum for soliciting and coordinating community analysis and input and providing advice.

Statement of Task

"The UAP Independent Study should report on the following questions:

1. What type of scientific data currently collected and archived by NASA or other civilian government entities should be synthesized and analyzed to potentially shed light on the nature and origin of unidentified aerial phenomena?

2. What types of scientific data curently collected and held by non-profits and companies should be synthesized and analyzed to potentially shed light on the nature and origin of UAPs?

3. What other types of scientific data should be collected by NASA to enhance the potential for developing an understanding of the nature and origin of UAP?

4. Which scientific analysis techniques currently in production could be employed to assess the nature and origin of UAP? What types of analytical techniques should be developed?

5. In considering the factors above what basic physical constraints can be placed on the nature and origin of UAP?

6. What civilian airspace data related to UAPs have been collected by government agencies  and are available for analysis to a) inform efforts to better understand the nature and origin of UAPs and b) determine the risk of UAPs to the national air space?

7. What current reporting protocols and air traffic management (ATM) data acquisition systems can be modified to acquire additional data input on future UAPs?

8. What potential enhancements to future ATM development efforts can be recommended to acquire data concerning future reported UAPs to assist in the effort to better understand the nature and origin of UAPs?

Appointment of members

NASA's Science Mission Directorate, in consultation with NASA's Aeronautical Research Mission Directorate will appoint the chair and members of the UAP Independent Study for terms of up to one year. Diversity of thought shall be a factor in determining the composition of the UAP Independent Study. The UAP Independent Study will have approximately eight to twelve members chosen with an appropriately broad range of expertise, experiences; employer types and sizes and individual demographics. The membership will consist of experts drawn from U.S. academic, independents, and commercial institutions. Members of the UAP Independent Study who are not Regular Government Employees (RGE) will be designated Special Government Employees (SGE) or Representatives. A NASA civil servant will be appointed as the Designated Federal Officer and Executive Secretary of the UAP Independent Study..."

Some comments

1. It is plain to see that this is only a limited look at the topic. There is mention, after the nine months study, of the proposal of a UAP research program. Some commentators on social media have failed to acknowledge this limitation, i.e. that it is an initial study only, and drew attention to the small budget for what was. in their eyes, a large project.

2. The study of UAP "...observations of events in the sky." So, completely overlooking any object seen on the ground, which takes off, leaving traces, and disappears at hypersonic velocity. It appears the Study's scope had been defined by the nature of Naval aviators' observations.

3. "The limited nature of observations of UAPs..." What about the hundreds of thousands of reports in civilian databases such as NUFORC or MUFON? Or former military studies, such as Bluebook and AAWSAP? I realise that many of these have conventional explanations, but that still leaves thousands of unexplained cases. 

4. And the big one. "There is no evidence UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin." Talk about going into the study with an hypothesis that there is no evidence UAPs are extraterrestrial in origin. Shouldn't they be waiting till the end of the study period before being able to state this? And only then if their evidence supports this conclusion. 

In summary

This Study announced by NASA is certainly, a very strongly positive sign, in that an entity such as NASA has decided to take a look at UAP research. I don't think that several years ago, we would have anticipated such an outcome. The agency has now, to conduct the study and produce a report for us all to read. 

Thursday, June 9, 2022

John F. Stratton's statement re my recent blog post

In a recent post, I wrote a piece asking a question concerning the identity of an individual who had been in contact with Skinwalker Ranch researcher Ryan Skinner. The suggestion arose that this individual may have been former UAP Task Force director John F. Stratton. Although I attempted to contact Mr. Stratton for a comment, I was unable to do so. 

This morning on Twitter, Las Vegas journalist George Knapp advised that he had been in  touch with Mr. Stratton at the recent SCU conference in Huntsville, Alabama. Knapp tweeted the following statement, after speaking to Mr. Stratton:

"I have never met or talked in any form, electronic or otherwise, with Mr. Skinner. Additionally, I have never been to his website or Facebook group etc." Jay Stratton told me this via a text and also in person during the SCU conference this past weekend.

In an email to this author,  Knapp added a further statement by himself, which I reproduce with his consent:

"Jay Stratton had a long and distinguished career in the military and as a civilian intelligence officer.  To my knowledge, he's never leaked anything to anyone about classified matters,  never granted interviews or made statements to media about UFOs/Paranormal (including to me), and most certainly is not the person who was whispering in the ear of Ryan Skinner.

Maybe someone else was posing as Stratton in communicating with Skinner via disappearing text messages, or perhaps there is another explanation.  The person who made up the statements shared by Ryan seems to have a vivid imagination given the claim that most of the paranormal and UFO activity at the ranch is supposedly being generated by the remote viewers in foreign countries. 

Whoever said that knows little about the measurable physical events at the ranch or about the nearly 100-year history of such activity on the property,  That person knows even less about remote viewing.

I spoke to Mr. Stratton face to face during the SCU conference in Huntsville and he was mildly amused that someone would fabricate these fake quotes attributed to him."

I thank George Knapp, for following up this matter; and for advising us of the results.

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Niagara Falls sightings - another investigation by BAASS

In a recent blog I reported on my efforts in mining the phenomainon database. One of the cases which I found in there, was an investigation by Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) into paranormal occurrences in the locality of Tennyson, Indiana, USA. 

Danny Silva

Yesterday, U.S. researcher Danny Silva, in a blog post,  reported brief details of another BAASS case investigation which went to the Defence Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP.). The information provided by Danny was:

* Multiple witnesses saw an unknown object in the sky

* The object was recorded from multiple angles

* BAASS investigators were despatched to the area

* Several videos were collected by BAASS

* The case was forwarded to the AAWSAP.

"Skinwalkers at the Pentagon"

I wondered if I could find out additional information about this? Firstly, I checked my copy of the 2021 book titled  "Skinwalkers at the Pentagon" by Lacatski et al. There were two references in  the book to the keywords "Niagara Falls."

1. Page 210. Documents sent by BAASS to the DIA's AAWSAP.

"#3 BAASS Project Managemen Plan Addendum Report: UAP Sightings - Niagara Falls, Canada, BAASS case #200900000108000, 9 October 2009 - 21 March 2010 (393 pages.)"

2. Page 211.

"BAASS March 2010 Monthly Report. BAASS MUFON Relations, HBCCUFO UAP site, Utah Ranch Investigations, Niagara Falls Anomalies, and Tennyson, IN Anomalies (71 pages.)"

Surprsingly, for the fact that it is a 393 page report, there is nothing about any Niagara Falls, Canada,  UAP sightings in the main body of the book.

UAP database

I then went to the UPDB and found three reports from Niagara Falls, during the period 1 November 2009 - 15 November 2009. These were:

1. 1 November 2009 10pm. Niagara Falls, NY, USA. MUFON. 

"This has been going on every clear night for the past 6 months. It started back in May 2009. I went to my son's school to pick him up from a band concert he was in, and when I left my house I saw 3 huge lights at the corner of my dead-end street. As I approached this top sign, I found myself under a huge triangle. It was about 100 feet above my head and had 3 lights in the rear, 3 lights in the center and as I drove under it further, it had 3 lights in the front. It was at least an 1/8 of a mile long and 100 feet across. As I passed the nearest intersection (Route 93), I finally was past it. I think I was in shock as I continued to drive to my son's school. I picked him up and as I drove back to my house. I hoped it would still be there, however it was gone. When I got home I told my mom. I must have been convincing because she believed me. 

After that, every clear night I saw a star shaped object, sometimes 3. However, I knew in my heart these were no stars. This continued every clear night. I could see well into the sky. These things were pretty stationary and moved from south to north over the course of the night. Then I started seeing objects flying away from the stationary objects, with blinking lights, almost like planes except they flew erratically and eventually flew below the tree lines. 

Two nights ago I decided to look at them through my son's binoculars and confirmed what I knew in my heart, they're not stars. They're triangular shaped and blue at the top, white in the middle and towards the botton, and red at the tail. The objects that leave them are blimp shaped and the entire object blinks light in spike pattern. The spikes being red and white. I'm actually looking at them while I'm typing this letter! I'm disabled, therefore poor and cannot afford to buy a telescope and have no means of taking pictures. I assure you this is no hoax and I'm asking you to bring your equipment on any clear night and you will crap your pants!!! What freaks me out is that Niagara Falls has a huge airbase and can't believe noone is reporting this. It's also over the general vicinity of Southern Ontario, Canada, these people must be seeing what I am seeing. Why isn't anyone saying anything?????? I'm 51 years old and as sane as they come! I have a 150 IQ and I'm as honest as Abe Lincoln. This goes on EVERY clear night and the event lasts all night, therefore the bags under my eyes!! This is as good as it gets, please don't pass on these events, they're better than anything I've ever seen on UFO tv shows."

2. 10 November 2009 Night  Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada. NUFORC.

Bar shaped light with lit ends hovering in Niagara Falls for at least 30 minutes with darting small light. I was on Stanley and Murray Streets by the new casino along with other witnesses in the area watching it. The object was there from when I arrived around 6.15, watched for 30 minutes, rushed home to get camera, came back. It was only there for 30 seconds more so I captured nothing on video. There were MANY witnesses looking up and staring and commenting, some screaming saying OMG what is that etc. I noticed at least 5 witnesses and talked briefly to a few people about it. It was almost STRAIGHT up in the sky as after the clouds went away a bit I noticed it was in the area of W Cassopia. It FLASHED when the Casino spot lights hit it, just like the previous Youtube's video from the end of October this year. But those videos had only 1 small light. This had 2 IDENTICAL lights and a longer one in between them.

I could not make out anything when the spotlights were not hitting it as there was cloud cover and it was already night. It looked like it was just above the clouds, quite high, 1000ft for sure, about 2 inches long at arm's length. VERY bright, was in a straight line facing NNW. The light was white with a tinge of blue. Light itself was the straight like a bar bell with 2 lights on the end. It had a smaller light on each end of the bar that were identical in shape. There was a light, then a small space then light. This composed the SMALL light at each end. Then there was the middle BAR light which was about 5x the length of the small end lights. Had a middle longer bar than the light like the video again in a straight line. Since it was there for about 30 minutes or more as I was watching it, I was hoping it might be there for a while longer, so I rushed home to get a camera and my Night Vision Monocular. When I got back, it wa there for only about 30 seconds more. I couldn't even set up the camera to take any video then it disappeared. I waited until after 9,20pm to see if it would come back but I didn't see it anymore. 

Just before 9pm still looking in the arrea of the sky where it was, using my Night Vision Monocular, I suddenly saw a DOT just like a small star moving in a straight line and immediately thought it was a satellite as I have spent countless nights star gazing and see satellites every 5 minutes sometimes which is nothing unusual This light however, stopped going straight, slowed down smoothly, but quickly and turned flying around that area with incredible speed and maneuverability. It's very difficult to describe this type of movement. It was FAST, reactive, but still smooth flying. Not like a bug or a bird or anything I've ever seen. Keep in mind I've star gazed for decades, have owned numerous telescopes, so I'm familiar whith what can be seen out there. This was like nothing I've ever seen. 

This point of light looked to be very high as it was in FOCUS with the stars, anything very close would be out of focus on my Night Vision as it's manual adjusted focus so it had to be quite distant. This light then darted off in a straight line after the maneuvers and the lights from the street and buildings flared up the Night Vision and I couldn't view it any more as there were street lights everywhere. The whole time I was yelling out "that's impossible" etc. I couldn't contain myself. Shape: cigar. Duration: 30 minutes. 

3. 15 November 2009 7.20pm Nigara Falls, Ontario, Canada. NUFORC

Lights seen over Niagara Falls hovered for 1 hour and 45 minutes. Appeared in the sky around 7:20. Same object as I reported on the 10th, but lighting was different. This wasn't as bright this time but in the same spot in the sky. DIRECTLY straight north. This time I was prepared with a camera. Object was not a reflection or light abberation of any kind. It was very large and seemed to be thousands of feet up. Even though at times the sky was clear, it always seemed to be HAZY or partically cloaked. It went really high around an hour 30 minutes then came back down, then disappeared. 15 minutes later it appeared again for another 15 minutes, then was gone. 

The above were the only three reports in the UAPDB database from Niagara Falls between 9 October 2009 and 21 March 2010. There were no BAASS sourced Niagara Falls cases in the 44 BAASS subdatabase. 

Wider Internet search17

A search of the Internet, using the keywords "Niagara Falls plus UFO plus 2009' located the following:

1. 17 October 2009. 

In a 20 October 2009 article in the newspaper "Niagara Gazette" reporter Alison Langley reported on a 17 October 2009 observation by Angela and Scott Jordan. Angela Jordan reported that for 20 minutes they watched what looked like "...a piece of metal." A number of people reported it appeared at around 10pm and stayed for a couple of hours, although it appeared obscured by clouds. 

2. A Reddit post titled "UFO over Niagara Falls 2009 - captured by 3 separate witnesses.'

3. A YouTube video from 19 December 2009

4. Another series of 39 YouTube videos said to be of the Niagara UFO/lights phenomena 2009-2011. 

Analysis

The available material is extremely lacking in any analysis. We can only wait for the DIA to release the 393 page BAASS AAWSAP report. 

Thursday, June 2, 2022

Dr. Ning Li and her anti-gravity research - further information

The work of Dr. Ning Li

https://www.berryhillfh.com/obituary/ning-li?lud=4CF765EE88E7526FCBA619C30101F7E6

Back in 2019, I wrote an article about the anti-gravity research of U. S. researcher, Dr. Ning Li, who subsequently passed away on 27 July 2021. Following the publication of that article, my interests moved on to other things. It was therefore, a pleasant surprise to recently receive an email from an individual named Kent Bye, who had undertaken his own research on the MITRE 2003 Gravitational Wave Conference, at which Dr. Ning Li presented a paper.

Kent Bye's findings

With Kent's kind permission, I would like to document his findings, in this blog post. Kent wrote:

I went down a rabbit hole tracking down information on the MITRE 2003 Gravitational Wave Conference after some UFOTwitter discussion about Ning Li. I recalled that Hal Puthoff answered a question about her and said he read all of her work at the SCU AAP conference in 2021, but that she went dark and nothing came from it. Hal said that he was there at the 2003 MITRE conference, and it looks like Eric W. Davis was there as well, and I had trouble finding information about it at first, but I was able to dig up some references. Dr. Hal Puthoff is asked about Ning Li in the Q&A of his 2021 SCU AAP Conference Keynote. 


Here is a transcript of what he said:

QUESTION: Did you ever get a chance to read, and if so do you have any thoughts on Ning Li's 1993 paper on "Gravitoelectric-electric coupling via superconductivity"?

ANSWER: Hal Puthoff: Well, I certainly read <em>all</em> of her papers. I also participated in the [2003] MITRE [Gravitational-Wave] Conference where she made a major presentation. And... [pause] Originally, I thought, you know, she may really be on to something. But the fact that it hasn't particularly gone anywhere, and some of the critiques that have been published from a scientific viewpoint I found kind of compelling. So it's definitely in the gray box on the shelf. Same with the Podkletnov results from Russia.

Ning Li (physicist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)

A couple of papers were mentioned:

Torr, D. G., & Li, N. (1993). Gravitoelectric-electric coupling via superconductivity. Foundations of Physics Letters, 6(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00665654
FULL TEXT LINK: https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/BF00665654

Harris, E. G. (1999). Comments on "Gravitoelectric-Electric Coupling via Superconductivity" by Douglas G. Torr and Ning Li Foundations of Physics Letters, 12(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021621425670
FULL TEXT LINK: https://sci-hub.se/10.1023/A:1021621425670

Hal mentions that he was at the Mitre Gravitational Wave Conference, which happened in 2003.

2003 conference

After I did my whole research that I'm about to pass along to you for you to digest and potentially pass along as a blog post, then I discovered your 2019 post on Ning Li, which is very, very comprehensive. However, your timeline is missing her 2003 paper, which Hal mentioned -- in part because the 2003 MITRE conference is somewhat obscure and hard to track down as the Conference Proceedings don't appear to have been publicly published by MITRE, although they may be available via FOIA.

So here's my reconstruction of the 2003 MITRE Gravity Wave conference from what I could find. Feel free to use it as you see fit and I'm happy to be attributed or not, and just want to make this information a bit easier for the UFO community to track down, and your blog posts seemed like a good outlet for that. 

Proceedings of the conference

A citation that I've found is the Proceedings of the Gravitational-Wave Conference, edited by P. Murad and R Baker, The MITRE Corporation, Mclean, Virginia, May 6-9, 2003, but a full copy does not appear anywhere online.

A best accounting of the ~25 papers presented there in 2003 [HFGW-03-101 to HFGW-03-125] can be pieced together from this reference: http://www.gravwave.com/pdf/HFGW%20References.pdf [and is shown down below]

Hal mentioned Ning's 2003 paper that she presented at MITRE, which was:
Ning Li (2003), “Measurability of AC gravity fields,” paper HFGW-03-106, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

Here's an abstract of Li's “Measurability of AC gravity fields,” paper
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329013606/https://www.thelivingmoon.com/91_PDF_Database/Gravity_Related/106-Ning-Li-Prepub.pdf

Eric Davis

Eric Davis' Website provides a bit more context for the 2003 MITRE gathering as his participation on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency & National Security Space Office: Int’l High-Frequency Gravitational Waves Working Group, Gravitational Wave Conference, MITRE Corp., McLean, VA.
via https://earthtech.org/pubs/davis/

Robert M. L. Baker Jr. 

Robert M. L. Baker Jr. was interviewed about the 2003 MITRE gathering, and this is what he had to say:

[QUESTION] Robert, I understand that there are literally dozens of physicists & engineers doing research on High Frequency Gravitational Waves, and the 2003 Mitre HFGW conference was a pivotal first event in terms of bringing them together as a community. Can you describe this for me a bit?

[ANSWER] The MITRE conference was a crucial first step in bringing scientists together to discuss HFGWs from both the perspectives of theoretical physicists and practical engineers and included scientists from all over the world.

Interestingly though, scientists from China who were not able to attend the event became some of the biggest proponents of HFGW research and use the MITRE papers as background for their research.

The community that took shape at the MITRE Conference later evolved into STAIF Section-F, and this was due entirely to the tireless efforts of Paul Murad and Tony Robertson. STAIF proved to be an excellent forum for the presentation and discussion of new concepts in gravitational science.

https://medium.com/discourse/do-high-frequence-gravitational-waves-explain-li-podkletnovs-experimental-results-5d9f9560e1a6

Presentations at the Conference

I was able to piece together who presented at the 2003 MITRE Gavitational Wave Conference from this reference document from Baker's GravWav LLC from this reference: http://www.gravwave.com/pdf/HFGW%20References.pdf

HFGW-03-101
Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (2003), “What PoincarĂ© and Einstein have wrought: a modern, practical application of the general theory of relativity (The story of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves)”, paper HFGW-03-101, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-102
Heinz Dehnen and Fernando Romero-Borja (2003), “Generation of GHz – THz High-Frequency Gravitational Waves in the laboratory,” paper HFGW-03-102, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-103
Chincarini and Gianluca Gemme (2003), “Micro-wave based High-Frequency Gravitational Wave detector,” paper HFGW-03-103, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-104
Gary V. Stephenson (2003), “The application of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW) to communications,” paper HFGW-03-104, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-105
Pankaj S. Joshie (2003), “Possible celestial sources of HFGW ‘noise’: gravitational collapse of massive stars,” paper HFGW-03-105, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-106
Ning Li (2003), “Measurability of AC gravity fields,” paper HFGW-03-106, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-107
Giorgio Fontana and Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (2003), “The high-temperature superconductor (HTSC) gravitational laser (GASER),” paper HFGW-03-107, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-108
Fang-Yu Li, Meng-Xi Tang, and Dong-Ping Shi (2003), “Electromagnetic response for High-Frequency Gravitational Waves in the GHz to THz band,” paper HFGW-03-108, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-109
Melvin A. Lewis (2003), “Gravitational waves for voice and data communication,” paper HFGW-03-109, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9

HFGW-03-110
Marc G. Millis (2003), “NASA breakthrough propulsion physics project,” paper HFGW-03-110, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-111
Giorgio Fontana (2003), “Gravitational radiation applied to space travel,” paper HFGW-03-111, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-112
M. Portilla (2003), “Generation of HFGW by irradiating a multidielectric film,” paper HFGW-03-112, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-113
Valentin N. Rudenko (2003), “Optimization of parameters of a coupled generator-receiver for a gravitational Hertz experiment,” paper HFGW-03-113, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-114
Paul A. Murad and Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (2003), “Gravity with a spin: Angular momentum in a gravitational-wave field,” paper HFGW-03-114, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-115
Nikolai N. Gorkavyi (2003), “Generation of gravitational waves as a key factor for the origin and dynamics of the Universe,” paper HFGW-03-115, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-116
Glen A. Robertson (2003), “Analysis of the impulse experiment using the electromagnetic analog of gravitational waves,” paper HFGW-03-116, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-117
Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (2003), “Generation of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW) by means of an array of micro- and nano-devices,” paper HFGW-03-117, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-118
Roger Clive Woods (2003), “Gravitation and high-temperature superconductors: the current position,” paper HFGW -03-118, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-119
Leonid P. Grishchuk (2003), “Electromagnetic generators and detectors of gravitational waves,” paper HFGW-03-119, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-120
Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (2003), “Application of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves to imaging,” paper HFGW-03-120, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-121
George D. Hathaway (2003), “Force beam and gravity modification experiments: an engineer’s perspective,” paper HFGW-03-121, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-122
H. David Froning, Jr. and Terence W. Barrett (2003), “Investigation ofspecially conditioned electromagnetic fields for High-Frequency Gravitational Wave generation,” paper HFGW-03-122, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9

HFGW-03-123
Robert E. Becker (2003), "A gravitational archipelago," paper HFGW-03-123, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-124
Harold E. Puthoff and Michael Ibison (2003), “Polarizable vacuum ‘Metric Engineering’ approach to GRtype effects,” paper HFGW-03-124, Gravitational Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

HFGW-03-125
Eric W. Davis (2003), “Laboratory generation of high-frequency gravitons via quantization of the coupled Maxwell-Einstein fields,” paper HFGW-03-125, Gravitational-Wave Conference, The MITRE Corporation, May 6-9.

2008 MITRE report

I came across another 2008 report from MITRE on HFGW that's cited in the DIRD on "High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications"
https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/dia/AAWSAP-DIRDs/DIRD_21-DIRD_High-Frequency_Gravitational_Wave_Communications.pdf

Eardley, et al. (2008) "High Frequency Gravitational Waves," JSR-08-506, October, the JASON Defense Science Advisory Panel and prepared for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Document is at https://irp.fas.org/agency/dod/jason/gravwaves.pdf

Technical report from JASON, The MITRE Corporation concludes: "Previous analysis of the Li-Baker detector concept is incorrect by many orders of magnitude" -- That's a different Li. (Dr. Fangyu Li of Chongqing University, China.)

"The subject of High Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW) has attracted considerable interest in the US government over the last few years. In September 2007, HFGW came to the attention of the National MASINT Committee of ODNI; in turn, staff at this committee asked JASON to review both the underlying science and technology of HFGW, and their implications for national security. JASON hosted briefings during June 17-18, 2008 from individuals both inside and outside the US government, and also collected about a thousand pages of printed or electronic material. This report gives our conclusions and supporting analyses, after having considered this input. Classified topics and conclusions are presented in the accompanying classified appendix."

Acknowledgement

Thank you to Kent for his hard work on the above, and for sharing this with the UAP research community. 

Update 4 June 2022

A 2 June 2022 tweet by Mik M @hlywdufo alerted me to a copy of a 36 page booklet titled "Gravitational-Wave Conference - International High-Frequency Gravity Wave Working Group - Authors and Speakers" for the May 6-9 2003 MITRE Corporation event. Included in the booklet was a bio of Ning Li and a synopsis of her paper.

About the author

She received her B.S. in Semiconductor Physics in 1966, her M.S. in Space Plasma Physics in 1981 from Peking University, her M.E. in Electrical & Computer Engineering in 1986, and her Ph.D. in Plasma Physics in 1988, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), New York.

Dr. Li was an electronics engineer with the Railway Ministry from 1968 to 1978, a lecturer and a research assistant at Peking University from 1978 to 1981, an Assistant Professor of Physics at Beijing Polytechnic Institute from 1981 to 1984. She became a Postdoctoral Research Associate in May 1988 at RPI, a Senior Research Associate in 1989, a Research Scientist in 1991, a Senior Research Scientist in 1995 at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

After being offered the Associate Professorship from the Physics Department of UAH in 1996, Dr. Li became the Principle Investigator of the Delta-g project of NASA in 1996. She became the Director of the Superconductivity and Gravity Laboratory from 1999 to 2000. She became President and CEO of AC Gravity LLC in 2000. Dr. Li became the Principle Investigator of the Project of Gravito-Electromagnetic superconductivity experiment of the US Army in 2001.

She has thirty six years of hands-on research experience involving heavy ion beam-probe techniques in tokomak measurement at RPI from 1984 to 1988; in designing three-Level night vision goggle at Beijing Polytechnic Institute from 1978 to 1984; designing auto control signal system and semiconductor integral electric circuits at the Chinese Railway Ministry from 1968 to 1978. Chief Engineer in Semiconductor manufactory from 1965 to 1968. She taught Statistical Physics and Methods in Mathematical Physics at Peking University from 1979 to 1981; Plasma Physics I & II, Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanism at Beijing Polytechnic Institute from 1981 to 1984.

Her principal fields of research have been in Gravitation, Superconductivity, Semiconductor, Solid Physics, Optics Physics, Computer Science, Automatic Signal Control System, Space Plasma Physics, and Fusion Plasma Physics, particularly the computerized turbulence data analysis by using new statistical analysis techniques that she developed for her Ph.D. thesis. She has worked on the experimental and theoretical study of the gravitational fields and superconductivity from 1989 to the present. Her research in gravity and superconductivity has been recognized by the international science community. Dr Li’s original development of the gyro magnetically produced gravitomagnetic field was published in Phys. Rev. D in 1991, in Phys. Rev. B in 1992, and in Found. Phys. in 1993. 

Abstract

Measurability of AC Gravity Fields (paper HFGW-03-106) by Ning Li. † In the Lorentz gauge, the gravitational-generalized Lienard-Wiechart retarded potential shows that there are two types of gravitational fields. One is DC gravity, which is local and static such as the Earth’s gravity. Another is AC gravity, which is radiation and can transport far away without energy decay such as gravitational waves (GW). The possibility of generating and measuring an AC gravitational field is explored by calculation of the gravitational radiation fields excited by the induced nuclear angular dipole moments in a macroscopic quantum High-Tc superconductivity system. It is found that the effective AC gravity field at a Cu nucleus arising from the magnetic dipole effect is roughly 10-2 mGs. The practical application of the system for HFGW generation, detection, and application in the g - range is discussed. 

Canada to seek information on drones and UAP from the USA

  "Five Eyes" The "Five Eyes" is the name of a multi-state agreement to share information gained from signals intellig...