Monday, July 15, 2019

TTSA - a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Offering circular

On 12 July 2019, the To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences (TTSA for short) undertook a further filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. As with all these filings, there are always a few new pieces of information.

In this filing, which is an offering circular dated 12 July 2019, we learn:

"We currently work with and intend to employ additional lead engineers from major Department of Defense and aerospace companies with the capability to pursue an advanced engineering approach to fundamental aerospace topics like Beamed -Energy Propulsion, Space-Time Metrics Engineering and warp drive metrics."

My comment: This is the first time I can recall, that TTSA have mentioned their intention to employ additional engineering staff.

"On September 27, 2017, the company announced an offering pursuant to...raising $1,370,230 before closing on September 28, 2018..."

My comment: This is the first time I can recall, that a figure has been shown, for how much was raised by the first stock offering.

Number of shares on offer

The latest offering is "a maximum of 6,000,000 shares of Class A common stock...The cost price per share...is set at $5.00. The minimum investment is 70 shares or $350."

My comment: If all shares are subscribed to, the result would be an investment of $30,000,000.

Risk Factors

1. "Our Aerospace and Science Divisions have no current customers and no revenues."

2. "Aerospace and scientific research and development can be risky, and there are no guarantees that any of the projects we undertake will lead to a commercially viable product."

My comment: These statements are telling ones.

What is the M$30 to be used for?

If TTSA raises M$30 what is it planning to do with it? The offering circular states:

M$2.7 for offering expenses; M$14.2 for project initiatives, acquisition or strategic partnerships in the Entertainment, Science and Aerospace Divisions; M$6.4 on sales and marketing; M$5.7 on operating expenses; M$0.5 initiatives relating to the company's public benefit purpose; M$0.5 to repay a line of credit.

2019 products include

Sekret Machines' Non-Fiction series Book 2: Man. "This book is the stunning continuation of an intensive study of UFO phenomena in which hard science, technology and the human mind are explored as they relate to our world."


New Director

"In May 2019 the company appointed J Christopher Mizer to serve on the company's Board of Directors...Mr Mizer will be considered an independent contractor and will receive a monthly fee of $5,000 as well as 300,000 shares of the company's class A common stock..."

The current staffing is:

Thomas Delonge - President, Interim CEO.
James Semivan - Vice President, Operations.
Harold Puthoff - Vice President, Science and Technology.
Louis Tommasino - Treasurer, CFO.
Stephen Justice - Director of Advanced Programs and Technology. COO.
Kari Delonge - Chief Communications Officer.
Lisa Clifford - Secretary.
Luis Elizondo - Chief of Security and Special programs.

The Board of Directors is:

Thomas Delonge; James Semivan; Harold Puthoff; J Christopher Mizer. ("There is one additional director to be appointed."  "We are looking for a CEO...to take over from T Delonge.")

Who is J Christopher Mizer?

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/j-christopher-mizer-b12228/

The offering advises that :

"J Christopher Mizer currently serves on our Board of Directors. He has held that position since May 7, 2019. He is the current co-founder of Vivaris Capital and has held such position since Vivaris Capital was established in June of 1998. Vivaris Capital invests in and acquires middle-market businesses in a broad range of industries that are leaders in their market niches."

My comment: It would appear that Mr Mizer's role would be to assist the TTSA to acquire additional capital, though it says above that Vivaris Capital "invests in and acquires middle-market businesses." I would not have thought that TTSA could be described as a middle-market business.

New member of the Advisory Board

There is one member of the TTSA Advisory Board, listed in the offering circular, who does not appear on the TTSA's website list of their team. This is one, Chris Herndon. The offering circular provides the following information on Herndon:

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/chris-herndon-5688856/

"Chris Herndon is a C-level Executive and Entrepreneur and currently serves as Chief Operating Officer of TechCentrics Inc. Previously he served for more than twenty years in the federal government, most recently as Deputy Assistant to the President and the Director of White House Information Technology...He began his career in telecommunications as a Department of the Navy civilian, where he supported organizations such as the National Reconnaissance Office, Office of Naval Research, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the White House Communications Agency..."

My comment: Note that Herndon's background was with the US Navy. This is interesting to me in that TTSA has been claiming success with influencing the US Navy to update its guidelines on reporting unidentified aircraft; and in briefing members/staffers in Congress. Note also, the reference to supporting agencies such as the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)

The role of the NRO, according to their website is "the U.S. government agency in charge of designing, building, launching and maintaining America's intelligence satellites."

Given this role, the question of whether or not its sophisticated sensor network picks up UAP has been debated from time to time in the UFO literature.

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Is the US Office of Naval Intelligence now part of the AATIP effort?


Danny Silva

In a blog post dated 6 July 2019, US researcher Danny Silva noted, that in episode 6 of the "Unidentified" TV series, former Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) manager, Luis Elizondo stated:

"AATIP is no longer run by a single office. There's now several offices that are engaged in this effort...and it is being run with official blessing."

When Elizondo resigned from  the Department of Defense, in October 2017 he signed his resignation letter "Luis D Elizondo, Director, National Program Special Management Staff, OUSD(I)." So, we know that AATIP then lay within the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. What other offices might now be involved in the AATIP? Do we have any clues? I think we do.

POLITICO article

Back on the 23 April 2019, journalist Bryan bender wrote a POLITICO article titled "US Navy drafts new guidelines for reporting UFOs." The US Navy, stated to POLITICO:

"In response to requests for information from Congressional members and staff, Navy officials have provided a series of briefings by senior Naval Intelligence officials..."

So, in my opinion, one of the offices, other than OUSDI, could well lie within the US Navy. After all, it has been naval aviators who have been reporting incidents since 2004, and more recently in 2014/2015. Elizondo himself, has said that after AATIP was officially defunded in 2012, that the effort carried on with the assistance of other agencies. One which, he specifically mentioned, was the US Navy.

John Greenewald

Could the "guidelines" mentioned above, provide us with a lead? US researcher John Greenewald sought copies of both the 2015 "guidelines" and the re-issued (not new) 2019 "guidelines;" issued by the US Navy, to its fleet.

Initially, Greenewald tried the US Navy's public affairs office. Their response on the 26 April 2019 was:

"We are unable to share the message with you. Due to the operational and aircraft specific nature of these guidelines, security considerations preclude their disclosure."

Greenewald then used the FOIA. A letter, dated 28 June 2019, from the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, set out the Navy's response:

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-007448.pdf&hl=en

"OPNAV N2/N6 has identified 1 classified record that is responsive to your request...all portions are exempt from release under the FOIA..."

In short, there is no lead here at the moment. 

The Office of Naval Intelligence


According to Jeffrey T Richelson's definitive work "The US Intelligence Community" (2016, 7th edition, Westview press):

"In February 2013 joint testimony before  the House Committee on Armed Services, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD[I],) and Director of the DIA identified naval intelligence as consisting of three organizations; ONI, the Fleet Intelligence Office, and the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS.)" (Page 134.)

Richelson went on to say (page 135):

"ONI's two main intelligence analysis units are the Nimitz Operational Intelligence Center (NOIC) and the Farragut Technical Analysis Center (FTAC.)"

FTAC

I went through Richelson's book, looking for the most likely locations within the ONI which might have an interest in emerging technologies; future capabilities, and unmanned aerial vehicles. I found that:

"The technical analysis center is responsible for providing analyses of foreign navies, platforms and weapons, strategic assessment of foreign future capabilities..." (page 137) and:

"The Office of Strategic Assessments is responsible for "projecting the future environment...and characterize foreign efforts that could put U.S. Naval forces at risk..." (pp137-138) and:

"The Naval Platforms Department is responsible for the study of all surface ships...unmanned aerial vehicles..." (p139.)

Earlier editions of "The US Intelligence Community" contained similar statements.

Conclusion

Without additional information, it is not possible to take this line of inquiry any further. Are any blog readers able to add to this?

Acknowledgement:

Thank you to Australian researcher Paul Dean, for his assistance with sourcing material relating to the US Office of Naval Intelligence.

Update 1: 10 July 2019

I had a recollection that I had seen a reference where Elizondo mentions two other agencies he worked with while with AATIP. I finally found one such reference:

"...Elizondo disputed the official story that the program ended when the funding ceased in 2012. He told the New York Times that only the funding ended, but he continued to work with Navy and CIA officials out of his Pentagon office until he resigned on October 4..."

Update 2: 10 July 2019

In response to the above post, @red_pill_junkie on Twitter wrote:

"In the final episode of Unidentified they show 3 men (from afar) who were said to be Elizondo's successors. I don't know if it means anything but one was wearing green military fatigues."

I had, in fact noted the same thing, that one of the three men wore military camouflage clothing, while the other two seemed to be in suits.

Below are screen shots from Episode 6 of "Unidentified."



Can any blog readers identify which branch of the US military wears such a uniform?

Friday, July 5, 2019

After U.S. Congressional UAP briefings - What comes next?

In a blog post dated 28 August 2018, I pondered which US Congressional Committees, might have an interest in receiving briefings/holding hearings, on the subject of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena? My best estimate, at that time, was the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC.)  This Committee currently has 28 members on it. One of that Committee's sub-committees is the Emerging Threats and Capabilities (ETC) sub-committee. Luis Elizondo, former Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) manager,  constantly mentions the word "threat" in his talks. There are seven Senators who sit on both the SASC and the ETC sub-committee.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen

One Senator who stood out, to me, on this list of seven, was Senator Jeanne Shaheen. While researching my August 2018 blog post, I came across a newspaper article of relevance. It appeared in The Conway Daily Sun, dated 4 April 2018.  On 28 March 2018 during an interview with that newspaper, Shaheen was asked a question about recent media reports re UFOs. In response, Shaheen stated:

"You know, we have not heard anything around UFOs, that I have seen in either the Armed Services Committee or any other committee that I'm on."


Senator Shaheen - Source: The Conway Daily Sun


A little aside

In an 18 January 2009 article, Dr Ted Loder, University of New Hampshire, stated that he had been sent, at his own request, to a UFO briefing, by then Governor Jeanne Shaheen.  This was the 9 April 1997 briefing, organised by Dr Stephen Greer, CSETI, at which a number of congressional officers attended.

Moving forward to 2019

On 2 July 2019, another relevant article appeared in The Conway Daily Sun In a piece written by Daymond Steer, Shaheen confirmed that she had now been briefed on Unidentified Flying Objects.

"We have been briefed," said Shaheen. "It was a classified briefing so I am not allowed to talk about it. But if you were to ask me personally, do I believe there are UFOs, I think that there are events that have happened that have not been explained adequately."


Other senators briefed - 2019

In a CNN politics article by Veronica Stracqualursi and Zachary Cohen, dated 20 June 2019, it was reported that a group of US Senators had received a classified briefing on 19 June 2019. Included in that group was the Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner.

A spokeswoman for Senator Warner, Rachel Cohen, told CNN:

"If pilots at Oceana or elsewhere are reporting flight hazards that interfere with training or put them at risk, then Senator Warner wants answers. It doesn't matter if it's weather balloons, little green men or something else entirely - we can't ask our pilots to put their lives at risk unnecessarily." 

The article then quoted Joseph Gradisher, spokesman for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare, as saying:

"Navy officials did indeed meet with interested congressional members and staffers on Wednesday to provide a classified brief on efforts to understand and identify these threats to the safety and security of our aviators."

"Follow up discussions with other interested staffers are scheduled for later today (Thursday 20 June). Navy officials will continue to keep interested congressional members and their staff informed. Given the classified nature of these discussions, we will not comment on the specific information provided in these Hill briefings."

How many Senators were briefed?

An article, dated 19 June 2019, by Politico  written by Bryan Bender, says the number was three, including Senator Mark Warner.

Senator Warner -Source: Politico 19 June 2019

Politico quoted spokesman Lt Cmdr. Daniel Day, as saying:

"Navy officials did indeed meet with interested congressional members and staffers on Wednesday to provide a classified brief on efforts to understand and identify these threats to the safety and security of our aviators...Navy officials will continue to keep interested congressional members and staff informed. Given the classified nature of these discussions, we will not comment on the specific information provided in these Hill briefings."

Bender went on to note that:

"But several current and former officials with direct knowledge describe the Capitol Hill briefing as the latest for members of Congress and their staff representing the Intelligence, Armed Services and Defense Appropriations panels."


Outcomes

Almost every commentator in the UFO community has focused solely on the current briefings to Senators and their staff. However, as well as doing this, I'd like to pose the question, what comes after these Senate briefings?

Firstly, though, it should be acknowledged that already there is one outcome, in that the US Navy has issued guidelines to the Fleet, requiring the reporting of intrusions into operational spaces, by unidentified aircraft.

What's next ? For some time now, people like former Senator Harry Reid have been calling for Congressional hearings, as opposed to briefings, on this topics. There haven't been Congressional hearings on the subject since 1966 and 1968.

One of the areas of Congress mentioned by Bryan Bender was the Defense Appropriations. The US Senate Appropriations sub-committee is one of 12 sub-committees of the Senate committee on Appropriations. So, if one is seeking money for a US government UAP program, it makes sense to brief the Defense Appropriations area.

The next fiscal year runs from 1 October 2019 to 30 September 2020. So June 2019 was the latest time to add something to next year's DoD budget.

Does this mean that we might see a re-funding of the AATIP (or whatever name AATIP has been changed to)? Or, perhaps a US Navy led study? One dormant player in all this, has been the United States Air Force. Navy spokespersons, have in recent times been mentioning that the topic is relevant to both the Navy and the USAF, but we have yet to hear from the USAF on this matter.

Update: 6 July 2019

Researcher Paul Scott Anderson pointed out to me, that an article dated 9 June 2019, written by Jeff Schogol, appeared on the task and purpose website.  In this article there were two quotes of interest:

1. Air Force spokesman Maj. Bryan Lewis:

"While there is a proliferation of UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) technology across the world, we are not concerned that China or Russia have developed a long-range capability about which we are not aware."

I checked to see if Maj. Bryan Lewis is, in fact, a recognised spokesman for the USAF. I found his name mentioned as such, in numerous Air Force Times website articles, such as this one.

2. Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. James Poss:

"I'd be very surprised if these were Russian or Chinese aircraft operating from Russia or China."

I found a USAF official biography for Poss, here. The facts about Poss mentioned in the taskandpurpose article agree with what is in the biography.

Sunday, June 30, 2019

To The Stars Academy's new mobile app to be named SCOUT- some details

The To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSAAS) has been filing regular reports with the US Securities and Exchange Commission  I previously reported on some interesting information in their 30 April 2019 filing, in a blog post dated 10 May 2019.

New filing

On 3 June 2019, TTSAAS filed an "Offering circular" for up to 6,000,000 shares of class A common stock at $5 a share. As part of this filing, there was an accompanying summary, which in part advises of the company's recent and future activities. Included there was:

"The Company's Science Division is a theoretical and experimental laboratory...Through its Advisory Board TTSAAS has access to world-renowned scientists with advanced knowledge to pursue the company's commercially viable research projects in the near-term, including quantum communications technology, the A.D.A.M. (Acquisition & Data Analysis of Materials) Research Project, and THE VAULT (formerly the Community of Interest ("COI"), an artificial intelligence empowered database to be housed in a new mobile application called SCOUT (Signature Collection of UAP Tracker.)"

My comment:

In my 10 May 2019 blog post, I noted the reference to a mobile app. However, at that time the name of the app was not mentioned. Now we know it is to be named SCOUT.

Later in the statement, there is mention:

"Wherever possible we will translate our unique knowledge into a medium that we can responsibly share with our customers and community. This could be accomplished in various ways providing access to a robust database like the THE VAULT, by educating government policy makers so that they can influence changes in official Department of Defense policy like the Navy's recent new guidelines for reporting UFOs, and through informed entertainment media like the docu-series, working title the UNIDENTIFIED: Inside America's UFO Investigation."

Future goals

Under "Our future goals" we find:

"Launch mobile application SCOUT to house THE VAULT, allowing users to access and track data on the move in addition to allowing each user to view each other's contribution and documents posted by TTSAAS."

On page 19, there is further information:

"In furtherance of this plan, in April 2019, TTSAAS acquired the mobile application, social media accounts, website and all intellectual property of Project Capture. Project capture was designed to extract data from reports directly input by users, and serve as a host not only for sophisticated reports, but media content as well. Project Capture was designed with public participation of data collection in mind, which is directly applicable to company's plan for SCOUT. The company is in the process of updating and rebranding Project capture to SCOUT (Signature Collection of UAP Tracker.) 

Source: http://projectcaptureapp.com/
The SCOUT mobile application will enable data collection directly from the public that will contribute to THE VAULT. SCOUT will allow users to access, track and view other users' data  contributions as well as information published by TTSAAS. We plan to allow data transmissions from larger databases such as the U.S.government, and foreign governments in the future. SCOUT will be made available to the public through the iTunes app store and Google Play later in 2019."

Monday, June 24, 2019

The Advanced Theoretical Physics Project - documents from their first meeting

Introduction

Following the recent public release of three documents from the files of the late Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Australian James Rigney, made an appeal in my last blog post, for anyone with further related documents to come forward and place them in the public domain.

At around the same time, I was listening to US researcher, Melinda Leslie, on The UFO Network News show, with co-hosts Frank Stalter and Chant Hannah.  Chant had arranged for Melinda to mention her extensive research on the topic of a number of individuals who repeatedly crop up in the history of our subject, from the 1980's to the present day, and provided some relevant documents.

Melinda referenced a website which carried a video of a presentation she had given on that topic. I watched the video presentation, and afterwards contacted Melinda to follow up on a particular aspect; namely her use of images from some original documents related to the Advanced Theoretical Physics (ATP) project, run by John B Alexander in the 1980's.

Previously available ATP documentation

Several years ago, two pieces of documentation made their way into the public domain. I image these documents below:


The top document is the agenda for the meeting; and the bottom one, a booking "slip" for the "BDM McLean Secure Facility" for the dates of 20-25 May 1985.

Melinda's presentation

During her video presentation, Melinda mentioned that she had obtained her copies of ATP documents, from an individual named Jack Houck.

Who was Jack Houck?

I turned to my invaluable copy of "Forbidden Science: Volume Three" by Jacques Vallee. There I found the following entries about Houck.

Page 200, diary entry dated 30 July 1985

Bill Calvert contacted Vallee and told Vallee about a new group headed by John Alexander. Calvert:

"I heard it from Jack Houck, an engineer at McDonnell in Huntington Beach. He is a student of a friend of mine, a medium in L.A. He keeps bringing her some CIA types who give her coordinates and ask her what she sees...Jack Houck also believes there's a giant UFO base in Brazilian jungles."

Page 218 diary entry dated 23 November 1985

"News about Jack Houck: he will not be involved in UFO research with the government group after all, restricting his activities to PK. He tells me this results from official reactions when it became obvious that news of the Secret Onion's existence had somehow leaked to his New Age friends..." ["Secret Onion" was Vallee's name for the ATP - KB.]

Page 268 diary entry dated 28 November 1986

"Hal tells me that the Secret Onion project is dead. After all those high level meetings, someone who was higher threw a monkey wrench into the gears. I believe they became visible prematurely. The ludicrous episode with Jack Houck has demonstrated that they were incapable of maintaining confidentiality."

For further information about Houck, click here. In addition, please see update below dated 25 June 2019.

New to me images

In my communications with Melinda, she not only provided me with a copy of the "Agenda" document, but multiple additional documents. Melinda described the other documents as copies of overhead transparencies used during the May 1985 ATP conference. I had not seen these additional documents before. Melinda has kindly allowed me to share these. The comments below each image, are solely mine. 

Where did Melinda obtain these documents?

After viewing these additional images, I went back and re-watched her video presentation. At a 1994 MUFON Los Angeles event, Melinda had met Ed Dames. During a conversation between Melinda and Dames, Dames told her all about the ATP, and suggested she talk to Jack Houck about the ATP. Melinda responded that she was taking remote viewing classes from Houck. Melinda became friends with Jack and Jean Houck. After Jack Houck's death, in 2013, Jean Houck spoke to Melinda and Melinda's friend named Steve. Jean Houck invited Melinda and Steve to go through her husband's file boxes. This is where Melinda found the ATP documents. So, this is the source of the 1985 ATP documents I am discussing in this blog post.

The ATP documents sourced from Houck via Melinda





[Note: any highlighting shown, was done by Melinda -KB.]

My comment

Melinda's copy has some handwritten notes, probably by Houck. The previously available copy, imaged at the start of the post, doesn't have these handwritten notes, suggesting that it was sourced from another attendee.


My comments

1. Note the highlighted word "Threat." Moving forward to the year 2017 when we learned of the existence of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP.) Perhaps, this is not too unexpected, for after all both the ATP and AATIP were set in the US Defense Department.

2. There are three data bases mentioned. Were these actual established data bases, or do they perhaps refer to subsets of data? Note the reference to "Abduction data base." In 1985, there was the beginning of great interest in  the abduction phenomenon.

3. Under "Collect new data" there are "Install sensors" and "Overflights." 

4. On "Obtain direct contact" there is "physical" and "psychical or PSI."


My comments

1. Again, on this list we see the Defense oriented "Parry Soviet threat."

2. The area with most sub-points, is the "Obtain technology spinoffs."


My comments

1. A review of the history of the subject would be a must , as no doubt looking at the composition of the ATP membership, there were individual differences in knowledge bases.

2. Vallee, Sturrock, McDonald and Sagan are named in the hand written notes.


My comments

1. Two pages in one image here. 

2. Top image: I would think that the reference to "The Elephant cases" refers either to UFO cases which no one likes to talk about; or the old story of a number of individuals who touch different parts of an elephant, but none of them has the entire picture, and so they don't know its an elephant. 

3. Bottom image: In selecting goals for the project, a number of points set out here need to be noted. 


My comment

A good plan will "Have airtight security." Well, as we saw above, the existence of the project was  "outed" at a very early stage.


My comments

1. Dated 21 May 1985, these handwritten notes are probably by Jack Houck.

2. There is mention of individuals, Ron Blackburn and Don Kimbel of Lockheed.


My comments

1. Two pages on one image.

2. Bottom image: "Plan a media release now if cover is blown later." Unfortunately, their cover was blown almost straight away. 



No comment.


My comments

1. From a previous slide, task one is "detector deployment" where they were looking at deploying detectors within 3-4 months. The question arises as to what type of detectors they were talking about.

2. Task one was "Overflights." Targets to be selected, flights arranged, and photographs accessed. But what "overflights" and where we they to be conducted?

3. Under task four which is "classified data" here we see a little detail. Apparently the plan was to select certain individuals and interview them. Presumably for their knowledge of the UFO phenomenon.

4. Task four was "Hi-tech." This seems to refer to "remote viewing," as an approach, as it states "Select viewers" and "targets."

5. Note the bottom line which says "Prepare 100M program." Is this a reference that after the initial trial period, they were looking to institute a M$100 project?


My comments

1. A good result of "overflight" would be "Tight correlation with other observables." Again I ask, aircraft overflights of where and what? 

2. "Assess classified data." Perhaps my earlier thought that they wished to interview people in positions of knowledge, is incorrect. Instead, this leads me to believe they were talking bout accessing individuals in the Defense realm with access to classified sensor systems. Then to ask them to have the sensors available if there were orders given to task them to observe the UFO phenomenon?

3. It seems that someone in the group with knowledge of remote viewing, thought that here, a good result would be maximum return on investment (ROI.)


My comment

Nothing unexpected here.


My comment

This exercise in ranking the top tasks, resulted in the selection of detector deployment; overflights; classified data and PSI contact which are then featured elsewhere in the presentation images.


My comments

1. "Comint from ship" ?

2. "Five base locations." My thought here, is that there have been suggestions that the UFO phenomenon has "bases" on Earth. If so, this would explain why one of the four selected tasks was "overflights." Surveillance photographic flights to see if anything turned up? Note a comment from Vallee's book, cited earlier in this blog post that "Jack Houck also believes there's a giant UFO base in Brazilian jungles."

In summary

A fascinating insight into the ATP conference of May 1985, as shown in copies of the original presentation material from that event.

Acknowledgement:

I wish to again thank Melinda Leslie, and her colleague Randy Koppang, for all their research; and particularly Melinda for sharing the images with me.

Update 1: 25 June 2019

Melinda Leslie pointed out to me, that John B Alexander had written an Obituary for Jack Houck. This appeared in the Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration, 2013, volume 27, number 2, pages 323-324.

Houck worked as an aeronautical engineer with Douglas Aircraft Company which then became McDonnell-Douglas and then Boeing, between 1961-2003.

In part, Alexander's piece included:

"He managed a number of extremely sensitive defense and intelligence programs...During that period he formed the Advanced research Group that engaged in evaluating data of foreign rockets and associated weapons systems...

"...in 1980 James McDonnell, then chair of McDonnell-Douglas, asked him to run a remote viewing experiment. In response Jack conducted fully judged, double-blind experiments using latitude and longitude coordinates for targets all over the world...

"...he worked with established material scientists to conduct analysis and documentation of microscopic changes that occur to the material during the PKMB...

"...The work performed by Jack in development of theory, experimentation, and analysis covering a wide range of extraordinary observations was exemplary..."

Update 2: 25 June 2019

An anonymous individual submitted the following comment after the post appeared:

"Five base locations" most likely refers to the alleged UFO bases Pat Price remote viewed and showed to Hal Puthoff in 1973, (in addition to Jack Houck's one in Brazil). I'm sure you know the story - it's well documented in Richard Dolan's "UFOs and the National Security State Volume 2" on page 68. Price told Puthoff that there were four major UFO bases on the planet. There were supposedly located at Mt. Perdido in the Pyrenees Mountains, Mount Inyangani in Zimbabwe, Mount Hayes in Alaska, and Mount Ziel in Australia. Interestingly, in a lecture in the early 2000s Puthoff stated that someone from Australia was called who confirmed that the location Price found was a hot spot for UFO sightings. Puthoff begins the story at 3:31 in this video https://youtu.be/LPYFMkxw830?list=PL9101FF5CCA48AE61&t=211 I'd be interested to hear what you think about UFOs supposedly being frequently sighted near Mount Ziel, Keith. Thanks for the post."

I watched the video presentation, which was part 7 of a talk Hal Puthoff gave at The Arlington Institute, on 1 February 2012. In part, Puthoff stated:

"Pat Price volunteered that he'd found several UFO bases on the planet, and one of them was in Australia. So, somebody in the Agency, called the station chief without telling him why he was asking. He said, can you tell me what's going on over there in the Mount whatever, I forget what it was now, area. And the guy said you mean where all the UFOs coming down."

The reference in Dolan's book includes the following text; speaking of Pat Price:

"He told Puthoff that there were four major underground alien bases, each within a different mountain range...The main purpose of the bases he stated, were to 'reinforce B.T.L. implants, transport of new recruits and overall maintenance function'...

"...The inhabitants of the bases looked like normal human beings, said Price, although the heart, lungs, blood and eyes were different. The four sites were protected from discovery and had very advanced technology. Price also said the inhabitants of these bases used 'thought transfer for mental control of us.'

"...The fourth site was at Mount Ziel, in Australia's Northern Territory. This base had the most personnel, including many from the other three sites, 'like a rest and recreation area.' While viewing this location, Price thought he was detected, so he 'left' and then returned. he noted the base was also the 'homo sapiens introduction point.'"

Sunday, June 23, 2019

New Questions and answers - James Rigney

Background

In a blog post dated 12 June 2019, I revealed that I had located the person who had provided Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, with Grant's copy of the Davis/Wilson document. I then published a statement from that individual, who at that time had decided to remain anonymous. However, shortly afterwards, my source revealed his real identity. He is a fellow Australian named James Rigney, who has had a long term interest in the subject of UFOs.

From information provided in the Davis/Wilson document and the two others subsequently released, I had deduced that the original source of James' copies of the documents, was the files of the late Doctor Edgar Mitchell. James has confirmed to me that the source of his copies of the documents, was indeed someone who had obtained them, from the files of Edgar Mitchell.

At his invitation, I have now had an opportunity to pose a further series of questions to James. Below I provide these questions and James' responses to them. After this, he simply wishes to remain in the shadows.

Questions and answers

Q1. There is speculation that you possess additional Mitchell documents. Grant Cameron, on yesterday's Spaced Out Radio interview mentioned the subject of at least one. Do you indeed, have more Mitchell sourced documents? If so, would they add significantly to what has already emerged, or are they of lesser interest? Could you describe them, in whatever manner you prefer?

A1. As I explained in my statement to Richard Dolan, there are more documents, but it would be wrong to assume that these are as significant as the two principle documents. In any event, these are with Grant's lawyer, Michael W. Hall, and may or may not be released in the future. Please bear in mind that the people in control of these decisions share the objective to move things forward as effectively as possible, so that any decision to reveal future documents will be considered in this light.

Q2. Richard Dolan has mentioned that there were some six boxes of Mitchell related material. Is this also your understanding? If so, can you elaborate on what these six boxes contained?

A2. I was once told that there were six boxes of material, although I certainly didn't see these, and I certainly wasn't given access to anything like that number of documents. Six boxes may or may not be a lot of documents, depending on the size of of the boxes.

Q3. On the Spaced Out Radio show, Cameron mentioned that at one point, he suggested you drop the material anonymously onto the Internet, but that you did not. Is this statement correct? May we again, hear directly from you whether or not you dropped the first two documents on to the Internet?

A3. Grant did advise me on a video conference in early May, or thereabouts, that he wouldn't be dropping the documents. We did discuss as to whether I would drop them, and I said I wouldn't. I can categorically state that I did not drop  the documents, or for that matter, pass them on to Richard Dolan. It is evident by mid-May there were a number of people in possession of the documents, along with several others that I know of who have had them for a decade or so.

Q4. Cameron then mentioned that he approached a "group of people" about leaking the first two documents, and they said "we'll take it from here." The implication being, that someone from this group was the anonymous leaker. Are you aware of the identity of this group, and would you be willing to name them? Thus enabling the question to be put to bed.

A4. I have no knowledge of who dropped the documents. Whilst I have heard Grant drop various names on a couple of his recent interviews, he did not discuss anything with me about who was going to, or who had, dropped the documents. Clearly that person wants anonymity, so it would be fitting that people respect that, and further to that, thank them for their efforts.

Q5. Richard Dolan mentioned that he was shown, what he believes were two pages of the Davis/Wilson document, in about 2006. In order that we can understand the timeline since 2002 when the Davis/Wilson document is dated, can you name the year in which you first came into possession of that document?

A5. I was in possession of the documents for a few years before I showed them to Grant in November, 2018. I would prefer not to nominate the exact dates in which I came into possession of the documents.

Q6. Given that it appears that a full set of the documents are held only by Cameron, Hall and yourself; and that neither Hall nor Cameron intend to ever publish them; do you feel comfortable in sharing them with anyone else, in order to have an independent person aware of their contents? Perhaps not to share them in public but to be aware of whether or not they will move the debate forward?

A6. I will not be releasing any documents personally. I doubt that anything new will be coming out anytime soon, if ever. There is already  a huge amount of data to process and a lot of work to be done, so the focus should solely be on that for the near future.

Q7. A number of people have so far come forward and suggested lines of evidence that suggest that the Davis/Wilson document is not genuine. What have you to say about this?

A7. I have watched the discussion around the authenticity of the documents. People are free to believe whatever they want, but I would say, "Follow the evidence." Personally I have seen  no evidence put up so far that would even remotely discredit the documents. I am with Richard Dolan and Grant Cameron, along with many others, in having no doubt that these documents are genuine.
Things are unfolding very quickly, so no doubt there will be more surprises to follow as these stories unfold.

Q8. I have been informed that your source for access to the documents, may have been Bob Staretz, a close friend of Mitchell, and someone who collaborated with Mitchell on his work on consciousness. Without naming the person who provided you with access to the original documents from the Mitchell files, can you provide any further information about them, even if only in general terms?

A8. I would rather not comment on anything in relation to the direct source of the documents due to my verbal NDA. I would hope that people respect this and understand what it has taken to get to the point we are at now.

Q9. At his point, is there anything further that you would  like to say?

A9. Yes. I would like to reiterate and emphasise that while people would no doubt like to know the direct source of the documents, and my role in it, this is now just background noise and of little direct consequence in moving things forward. The authenticity of the documents has now been established beyond reasonable doubt, so if these documents are to be the catalyst that fundamentally changes the discussion, I would urge people to get behind Richard Dolan, Grant Cameron and numerous others now getting on board to get the job done.

If anyone has any information which would add to the discussion, or in fact, any further documents around these, or other issues which they are holding which they feel should be made public, please feel to make contact with us. Thanks. 

Monday, June 17, 2019

Revelations of the third kind - The Bigelow/Mitchell 1996 letter emerges

Background

Recently, on 15 June 2019, on his Facebook page, Canadian researcher Grant Cameron, published a statement:

"For some time now Richard Dolan has encouraged me to become involved in the story of the two leaked UFO documents. I have resisted but Monday morning I will enter the game and make a posting. 

I will post a third document that will begin to explore where these documents came from and what is going on."

The document has now been released by Cameron.

Introduction

In this post, I want to take a look at this third document. It is a three page letter, dated 13 May 1996, from Robert Bigelow, and addressed to Edgar Mitchell. However, it is clear from the last paragraph of page two, that the letter was sent to all members of the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) Science Advisory Board (SAB.)

Bigelow letter page one



The letter opens with:

"Since a lot has happened in the past few weeks, I thought I would take this opportunity to give you a brief update and provide information about the next meeting. You will remember that it is scheduled for the evening of May 31st and the entire day of Saturday, June 1st."

My comment:

In Vallee's book "Forbidden Science: Volume Four," (FSV4) in a diary entry dated 1 June 1996, Vallee writes that he attended the fourth meeting of the NIDS SAB, in Las Vegas.

Bigelow next advises that "One of your members, Jim Whinnery has agreed to address his research on loss of consciousness which encompasses more than twenty years of intense investigation."

My comment:

FSV4, on page 314 notes:

"This fourth meeting...was excellent, thanks to three separate presentations led by General Jim Whinnery. He showed videos of pilots losing consciousness in centrifuges and in actual cockpits..."

The letter then follows with:

"He will be followed by Melvin Morse, a medical doctor who has written several books about near-death experiences..."

My comment:

"The other presenters (one by Edgar Mitchell) also touch on the near-death experience..." writes Vallee on page 314.

Bigelow letter page two 

On page two of the Bigelow letter, Bigelow writes:



"Since the last SAB meeting we have engaged in metallurgical analyzes of selected samples... The process has enabled NIDS to establish a working relationship with Los Alamos National Laboratory..."

My comment:

From FSV4, "The implants from the last session have now been analyzed at Los Alamos."

The Bigelow letter then refers to Phil Corso, and the fact that John Alexander, then a NIDS employee, had spent some time in Washington conducting a background check on Corso.

My comment:

FSV4 on page 307 in a diary entry dated 3 May 1996, states that John Alexander had been in Washington conducting a check on the background of Corso.

Paragraph three, of page two of the letter refers to:

 "The German contact we mentioned at the last meeting. Illobrand von Ludwiger...I have suggested a project to him...We can anticipate that we will be informed about current sightings in central Europe. I also gave his organization a $5,000 contribution."

My comment:

On page 300 of FSV4, diary entry dated 31 March 1996:

"The Institute has also connected with Illobrand von Ludwiger, who investigates abductions in Germany and Austria."

The last paragraph on page 2 includes:

"Enclosed is a copy of an article provided to us by your colleague, SAB member Edgar Mitchell. In addition we note that his new book, The Way of the Explorer is now out in book stores. We are sending you a copy."

My comment:

This paragraph, indicates to me that although the letter was addressed to Edgar Mitchell, it did in fact go out to all SAB members.

Bigelow letter page three



Finally, Bigelow provides a list of scheduled meetings for the NIDS SAB for the rest of 1996. These were on Aug 2-3 (5th); Oct 4-5 (6th) and Dec 6-7 (7th.)

My comment:

A check with FSV4 reveals that it places Vallee in Las Vegas on Aug 3 for the fifth NIDS SAB meeting. However, a check of FSV4 reveals that the sixth meeting did not occur until 10 January 1997, and the seventh meeting not till 9 March 1997.

In summary

The reason that I am comparing the contents of the May 1996 Bigelow letter to Vallee's diaries, only published in January 2019, is to show that the two match in close detail. Thus one can reasonably conclude that the NIDS letter of 13 May 1996 is the genuine thing.

In my opinion, the reason that Grant Cameron has provided us with this letter from Bigelow to Mitchell, is to again focus the debate on the fact that the three released documents; i.e. the Davis/Bigelow memo of 23 March 2001; the Davis/Wilson notes of 16 October 2002, and this latest third document from 13 May 1996, all come from the files of the late Edgar Mitchell.

TTSA - a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Offering circular On 12 July 2019, the To The Stars Academy of Arts and Sciences (TTSA for short)  undertook a further filing with the U...