Another explosive New York Times article about the US Navy and UAP

Introduction

Another excellent article, about US Navy aviators, and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena has appeared in the 26 May 2019 edition of the New York Times. Again written by the New York Times Pentagon correspondent, Helene Cooper; the New York Times' Ralph Blumenthal; and author and researcher Leslie Kean, it is headlined 'Wow, what is that?' Navy Pilots Report Unexplained Flying Objects.

The article is based on interview which the authors conducted with five US Navy pilots, who discuss sightings from the years 2014 and 2015. This was during Naval exercises, off the US East coast, off the states of Florida and Virginia.

Now, we already know some details of some of these sightings, as they have been mentioned by various commentators, over the last year or so. Plus, two videos taken in 2015, namely called "Gimbal" and "Go Fast," have been posted on the website of the To The Stars Academy. However, the New York Times article adds pilot names and additional information.

The purpose of this blog post, is to highlight some of this information. I will quote from the article and then add my personal comments, which hopefully will be useful to blog readers' understanding.

Frequency of sightings and speeds

There were objects which "...appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015...over the East coast..."

Comment: This suggests a date range of around June 2014 to March 2015.

"Navy pilots reported to their superiors that the objects had no visible engine or infrared exhaust plumes, but that they could reach 30,000 feet and hypersonic speeds."

Comment: The 2004 "Tic-Tac" object was reportedly travelling at hypersonic velocities at time. Note, though, that the NYT at this point, doesn't mention the shape of the objects.

"These things would be out there all day..."

Comment: Does this imply 24 hours a day, i.e. also at night?

One of the pilots, Lieutenant Ryan Graves "...reported his sightings to the Pentagon and Congress."

Comment: Here, yet again, is mention that pilots were discussing the matter with a part of Congress, likely to have been the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Near collision

"In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects and an official mishap report was filed."

Comment: There is more detail about this near collision later in the article. Does this mean that we might obtain a copy of the mishap report via the FOIA?

"But the objects had gotten the attention of the Navy, which earlier this year sent out new classified guidelines for how to report what the military called unexplained aerial phenomena, or unidentified flying objects."

Comment: Note that the recent Pentagon statement to the New York Post confirmed that the AATIP did investigate "Unidentified Aerial Phenomena."

Date of one of the videos

"Videos filmed by Navy pilots show two encounters with flying objects. One was captured by the plane's camera off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla., on Jan 20, 2015...the second video was taken a few weeks later."

Comments:

1. An analysis by myself and French researcher Christopher Spitzer, arrived at a date of 26 January 2015 for the "Gimbal" video based on audio commentary on the video which spoke of winds "from the west of 120 knots" at 7260 metres height. This date was based on upper atmospheric observations recorded on 26 January 2015, and the restricted movement of civilian aircraft traffic around Naval exercise areas.

Today, I checked the upper atmospheric soundings data for Jacksonville, Florida, station number 72206 for 0000 hrs zulu 20 January 2015. Nowhere from ground level to 32,195 metres does the wind velocity exceed 89 knots.

I also checked the data for 1200 hours zulu 20 January 2015 for Jacksonville. Again the maximum wind velocity from ground to 33,223 metres was 95 knots. At both times the wind was roughly from the west at most altitudes.

2. A few UFO researchers have insisted that the "Gimbal" and "Go Fast" videos were taken on the same day. However, here the NYT says "Go Fast" was taken a few weeks later.

US Navy guideline issued in 2014/2015

"Joseph Gradisher, a Navy spokesman, said the new guideline was an update of instructions that went out to the fleet in 2015, after the Roosevelt incidents."

Comment: We had not previously known that US Navy fleet instructions had been issued after the Roosevelt incidents.

"The sightings were reported " to AATIP "which analyzed the radar data, video footage and accounts provided by senior officers from the Roosevelt."

Comment: Former AATIP program manager Luis Elizondo hinted about such analyses, but so far no-one has been able to obtain the full data.

Details of some of the observations emerge

"Lieutenant Graves still cannot explain what he saw. In the summer of 2014, he and Lt Danny Accoin, another Super Hornet pilot, were part of a squadron, the VFA-11 'Red Rippers' out of Naval Air Station Oceana, Fla..."

Comment: Previously, we had not known the names of any of the 2015 incident pilots.

"The pilots began noticing the objects after their 1980's-era radar was upgraded to a more advanced system. As one fighter pilot after another got the new radar, pilots began picking up the objects, but ignoring what they thought were false radar returns."

Comment: I guess it was logical, at that time, to suspect the new radar was misbehaving.

Graves: "...the objects persisted, showing up at 30,000 feet, 20,000 feet, even sea level. They would accelerate, slow down and then hit hypersonic speeds."

Comment: Interesting data.

"Lieutenant Accoin said he interacted twice with the objects. The first time after picking up the object on radar, he set his plane to merge with it, flying 1,000 feet below it. He said he should have been able to see it in his helmet camera, but could not, even though his radar told him it was there."

Comment: Possible radar malfunction?

"A few days later, Lieutenant Accoin said a training missile on his jet locked on the object and his infrared camera picked it up as well. 'I know I had it. I know it was not a false hit,' he said. But still, 'I could not pick it up visually."

Comment: More interesting data.

The pilots speculated that "...the objects were part of some classified and extremely advanced drone program."

Comment: Why would the US, if they had such a program, operate it in restricted air space, endangering US Navy pilots?

More on that near miss

"In late 2014, Lieutenant Graves said he was back at base in Virginia Beach when he encountered a squadron mate just back from a mission, 'with a look of shock on his face.' He said he was stunned to hear the pilot's words. 'I almost hit one of those things...The pilot and his wingman were flying in tandem about 100 feet apart over the Atlantic east of Virginia Beach when something flew between them, right past the cockpit. It looked to the pilot, Lieutenant Graves said,like a sphere encasing a cube...an aviation flight safety report was filed..."

Comment: More details here than previously known. Again could an FOIA request locate this Navy report?

"What was strange, the pilot said, was that the video showed objects accelerating to hypersonic speed, making sudden stops and instantaneous turns..."

Comment: Are they here referring to the "Gimbal" and "Go Fast" videos or other videos?

In conclusion

A very interesting, and historical article, from the New York Times. More data to be added to that which we already have. However, of course, we would all like to take a look at, and analyse for ourselves, the radar data; the infra-red data; the full length videos, and have an opportunity to see the original log book observations of the pilots involved. Not that I am doubting their words; just frustrated at the inability to do some proper analysis myself, and not rely on the NYT's interpretation; however accurate their summary is. They are, after all, journalists, and not analysts. 

Another DoD spokesperson speaks out on AATIP

Background

Late last year I wrote two blog posts titled "How the US Department of Defense acknowledged the existence of AATIP" and "More on how the Department of Defense acknowledged the existence of AATIP." 

In these posts, I noted the following three statements by DoD spokespeople:

1. In a piece in the New York Times dated 18 December 2017, one of the authors of the famous 16 December 2017 piece on AATIP, Ralph Blumenthal, speaking of another of the authors, namely Helene Cooper, said "Helene met with a Pentagon spokesman on Dec 8 for a response to the information we had gathered. The answer came swiftly. There had been a program to investigate UFOs but it ended in 2012..."

2. Journalist Sarah Scoles, wrote a piece for Wired.com, dated 17 February 2018. She received a statement from one Major Harris, the principal spokesperson for the Under Secretary for Defense Intelligence and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Cyber Policy. Harris advised Scoles, that AATIP was looking at foreign threats to 40 years out, plus the program was also looking at "aerodynamic vehicles engaged in extreme maneuvers with unique phenomenology..."

3. Major Harris was also the spokesperson for the DoD who responded to a May 2018 enquiry from Swedish researcher Roger Glassel. Part of Harris' response was:

AATIP...was to assess "far-term foreign advanced aerospace threats the United States," including anomalous events (such as sightings of aerodynamic vehicles in extreme maneuvers, with unique phenomenology, reported by U.S. Navy pilots or other credible sources.).

The latest DoD spokesperson

The 27 May 2019 edition of the "New York Post" carried an article written by Steven Greenstreet, titled "The Pentagon finally admits it investigates UFOs." It reports on a statement, issued by Department of Defense spokesperson, Christopher Sherwood. Sherwood, on his LinkedIn page states that he is currently a Public Affairs Specialist at Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. 

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cgsherwood/

The text of the article, in part, reads:

"In a statement provided exclusively to The Post, a Department of Defense spokesman said a secret government initiative called the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification program "did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena."

This statement adds to the previous three cited above, namely, 1) unnamed spokesperson- "There had been a program to investigate UFOs but it ended in 2012..."; 2) Major Harris- the program was also looking at "aerodynamic vehicles engaged in extreme maneuvers with unique phenomenology..."; and 3) Major Harris - "including anomalous events (such as sightings of aerodynamic vehicles in extreme maneuvers, with unique phenomenology, reported by U.S. Navy pilots or other credible sources.)"

Another part of the Post's text was:

"And while the DoD says it shut down the AATIP in 2012, spokesman Christopher Sherwood acknowledged that the Department still investigates claimed sightings of alien spacecraft."

However, there is no direct quote from Sherwood cited, which says "the Department still investigates claimed sightings of alien spacecraft." What follows that text, is:

"The Department of Defense is always concerned about maintaining positive identification of all aircraft in our operating environment as well as identifying any foreign capability that may be a threat to the Homeland," Sherwood said.

"The Department will continue to investigate, through normal procedures reports of unidentified aircraft encountered by US military aviators in order to ensure defense of the Homeland and protection against strategic surprise by our nation's adversary's."

The above statement does not say anything about "alien spacecraft" but speaks in terms of "unidentified aircraft."

The April 2019, statement from the US Navy about them issuing new guideline to the Fleet, mentions reporting unauthorized and/or unidentified aircraft.

Follow up

I tweeted to, and emailed via his website, the New York Post journalist who broke the story, asking for a copy of the full statement from  the DoD. I have heard nothing back to date.

I also emailed the DoD spokesperson, Christopher Sherwood and also asked him for a copy of the full statement given to the Post, for the purpose of fact checking the story which this blog post concerns. However, as of today I have had no response.

Update:

3 June 2019

No one in my networks have been able to obtain a copy of the full Sherwood statement.

Update 6 December 2019

In a 6 December 2019 post to the Black Vault website researcher John Greenewald, provided details of the contents of email exchanges between himself, and Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough. While not providing all the contents of the emails, Greenwald quotes Gough as saying:

"Neither AATIP nor AAWSAP were UAP related...The purpose of AATIP was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapon systems applications with future technology projections over the next 40 years, and to create a center of expertise on advanced aerospace technologies."

"[AATIP] was the name of the overall program. [AAWSAP] was the name of the contract that DIA awarded for the production of technical reports under AATIP."

Regarding the fact that another Pentagon spokesperson, Christopher Sherwood, had stated that AATIP "did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena."

Gough: "At the time, Mr Sherwood was repeating the information that had been provided by a previous spokesperson two years earlier,...That previous spokesperson is no longer with my organization, and I cannot comment on why that person's explanation of AATIP included that it had looked at anomalous events.According to all the official information I have now, when implemented, AATIP did not pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena, that was not part of the technical studies nor the reports produced by the program."

Update 10 January 2020

The following is the text of a statement by Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough issued to a variety of recipients date 9 January 2020 as shown on the Black Vault website.

"At some point in the last couple months you have asked, in one way or another, why some DOD statements about the AATIP program have changed since December 2017 or event since this past Spring. I wanted to provide you with a broad comment regarding the changes.

Myself and my predecessors in my office, as well as our colleagues in the Defense Intelligence Agency and elsewhere in the Department, have done our best to provide you and others asking about AATIP the most accurate information we have available to us at the time we responded to your questions.

Questions about AATIP have continued ever since this past Spring, becoming more focused and asking for details beyond what was readily available on a program that ended nearly eight years ago, especially as people who had direct knowledge of AATIP have moved to other positions, or left the department. As we conducted research to try to answer the continuing questions, we sometimes uncovered new information that changed some of the previous responses. When responding to subsequent queries, we used the new information in our responses to be as accurate as possible with what we now knew."

Update 18 May 2020

On 18 May 2020, there appeared an article on the Blue Blurry Lines blog  Swedish researcher Roger Glassel obtained answers to a number of questions from Susan Gough, DoD spokesperson.

Roger,

Here are our responses to your questions.

1) In the Navy's effort to investigate sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) is there a centralized office, program or council, that analyse such sightings?

A: Under the cognizance of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), there is an interagency team charged with gathering data and conducting investigations into range incursions. As the preponderance of recent/reported sightings are from naval aviators, the Navy is leading much of the effort. All reports of range incursions are sent to this team for inclusion in the overall effort, thus maximizing the data available for analysis.

2) Are the Navy using the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles, AAV, in relation to investigation of UAP incursions?

A: When an observed object is NOT immediately identifiable, the Navy/DOD refers to it as UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). The generic term UAP is used in communications to avoid pre-judging the results of any investigation. If we are able to identify the object, we would use the appropriate term.  For example, a quadcopter would be referred to as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The U.S. Navy does not use the term “Anomalous Aerial Vehicles.”

3) If so, what is the definition of AAV used by the Navy and the U.S. Defense Department?

A: Neither the Navy nor the Department of Defense (DOD) use the term “anomalous aerial vehicles.”  In DOD, the acronym AAV stands for amphibious assault vehicles.  The contractors who prepared the 38 technical reports under AATIP occasionally used the term “anomalous aerial vehicles,” but it is not a DOD term.

4) How many UAP contacts/sightings are still categorized as unidentified by the Navy?

A:  As the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) sightings is ongoing, we will not discuss any aspect of individual sighting reports / observations, including frequency of sightings.

5) Are the Navy's effort to investigate UAP incursions part of the overall C-UAS [Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems] effort? 

A:  The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Any incursion into our ranges by any aircraft, identified or not identified, is problematic from both a safety and security concern. Safety of our aircrews is paramount. Unauthorized and unidentified aircraft pose a risk to flight safety. Additionally, it is vital we maintain security on our operations. Our aviators train as they fight. Any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations, tactics, or procedures is of great concern.

6) As the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) involved the Navy, which of the 38 DIA reports produced by the AATIP was the Navy involved in?

A: The contractors who produced the 38 technical reports under AATIP consulted with many experts across DoD, including Navy.  As these involve intelligence matters, we’re not to comment on specifics.

7) Without going into classified details, what was the Navy's role in the AATIP?

A: The contractors who produced the 38 technical reports under AATIP consulted with many experts across DoD, including Navy.  As these involve intelligence matters, we’re not to comment on specifics.

8) Are the Navy proactively investigating UAP, or are investigations only being done after a reported observation?

A:  The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Documented reports of sightings by military personnel form the basis for the investigation process. The investigation of UAP sightings by the multi-agency task force is ongoing.

Regards,

Sue Gough

Pentagon Spokesperson"

AATIP FOIA requests to the Defense Intelligence Agency- the 2017/2018 log is now online

Freedom of Information Log

The US Defense Intelligence Agency's (DIA) Freedom of Information Act Log for the fiscal year 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018, is now available online. It is 57 pages in length, and details 434 requests for that fiscal year.

Why is that of interest to readers of this blog? Well, the New York Times article revealing the existence of the previously secret, Pentagon, program they named as AATIP, came out on 16 December 2017. Shortly after this date, various individuals submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the DIA. This new log reveals details of who asked for what, about the AATIP, and associated topics.

Requests

The individual requests range from very simple, to the complex. All however, aim to have the DIA provide documentation about, or generated by, the AATIP.

The first relevant request [FOIA-2018-00065 which I will shorten to the last digits] came from one Laurent Corbell, who requested:

"...all documents generated as part of the Defense Department's Advance Aviation Threat Identification Program, including the 490 page report that was described in the December 16 article in the Washington Post..."

Numerous other individuals picked up on the paper's mention of a 490 page report and asked for copies; while others such as John Greenewald [00067] specified "...documents pertaining to the outline, mission statement, objectives etc...;" and yet others, e.g. Emma Parry [00069] also included "...video files..."

Soon, knowing that it had been reported that Bigelow Aerospace had a contract with the DIA concerning the topic of our mutual interest, people sought "...all contracts with Bigelow Aerospace..." [00070 Greenewald]; "...contracts with Bigelow Aerospace..." [00073 Tom Jones]; "...Reports generated by Bigelow Aerospace..." [00074 Randall Counsman]; and "...the prepared report under contract...by Bigelow Advanced Aerospace System..." [00075 John Alexander.]

Requests then went quiet for a while, until Jack Brewer [00087 & 00088] sought "...all contracts pertaining to the...AATIP..." and "...all contracts undertaking with and funded provided to the National Institute for Discovery Science from dates 1995-2004."

Researcher Timothy S Cooper [00100] was even more specific in his request for "...all Project Able Gray documents...forwarded to...AATIP..."

To ascertain how the FLIR video had been released John Greenewald [00101] asked for documentation on the declassification process. Then, still on the topic of videos Robert Powell [00119] went after copies of the first two videos; details of the events where the videos were taken; records from the 2004 E2-Hawkeye aircraft; and notes from Fravor and Kurth.

In a February 2018 article on Wired.com, journalist Sarah Scoles wrote about the Pentagon UFO videos. The DIA FOIA Log reveals that Scoles submitted a request [00116] asking for Bigelow related materials; and all data associated with individual incidents researched by AATIP.

Researcher Grant Cameron [00191] sought "...a copy of all FOIA requests that have been files from 2-4-2017 to 2-4-2018 asking for records for the AATIP..."

Overseas researchers

It wasn't only US researchers who submitted requests. Clas Svahn from Sweden; Michael Greshko; Australian Paul Dean, and myself; plus UK researcher Isaac Koi, also all put in requests.

Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP)

In a blog post dated 30 April 2018, Melbourne, Australia researcher Paul Dean, announced that the original name for what people were calling the AATIP, was in fact the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program. When UAP researchers learned that, they started submitting FOIA requests to the DIA, mentioning the AAWSAP, e.g. Jack Brewer [00259] and John Greenewald [00260.]

On 8 May 2018, I located an online copy of the DIA's solicitation for companies to undertake work on the AAWSAP. The solicitation number was HHM402-08-R-0211. So, soon after this discovery I filed a request myself [00290.] Around the same time so did Jack Brewer [00271] and UK researcher, Isaac Koi [00272.]

The final 2017/2018 request came from John Greenewald [00428] asking for a clean copy of the FLIR video and the release process undertaken.

Commentary

Below, I'd like to highlight, and discuss a number of the requests made.

1. Because the topic of "Skinwalker ranch" and the visit there by a government official, had been mentioned in media reports associated with the AATIP, a number of people thought to seek ranch related material from the DIA, e.g. Anna Merlan [00241]; Burke Williamson [00414]; and Patrick martin [00420.]

2. An unusual request [00129] came from one Craig Strahler:

"Requesting any documents of the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and mentioning the name Craig Strahler."

Was Strahler a BAASS staffer; an AATIP staffer; a witness? Can any blog reader enlighten me?

3. Kelsey McKinney [00163] went after "...emails coming from Luiz Elizondo that reference 'Tom Delonge' and any emails sent to Luiz Elizondo that reference 'Tom Delonge.'" Delonge created the To The Stars Academy (TTSA); and Elizondo is currently a TTSA employee.

4. John Greenewald [00255] sought copies of various Defense Intelligence Reference Documents (DIRDs) and supplied a range of numbers. Where this list of numbers came from is unknown to me.

5. An interesting sidebar was the request from Katy Sandalis [00110] who asked for any AATIP documents held in the 490 page report, which mentioned the 1980 United Kingdom Rendlesham Forest incident. I do recall that Luis Elizondo has made references to speaking to Rendlesham witnesses.

6. Another interesting sidebar came from James Lawrence [00318]:

"Requesting all and any records pertaining to bismuth-magnesium alloys and metamaterials between the dates of 1947 and the present, and any documents using the keywords 'waveguide' and 'metamaterials.'"

This reference to bismuth-magnesium, refers to material allegedly retrieved from the Roswell "crash" which is commonly referred to as "Arts parts." My recent catalogue contains more information about these "parts."

7. Las Vegas journalist George Knapp [00158] submitted a request:

"Requesting all document, reports and contracts relating to and provided in conjunction with contract # HHM402-08-C-0072 Defense Intelligence Agency 2008-2010."

Why is this of interest? It doesn't even mention AATIP? Well, on 8 May 2018, after Paul Dean announced that the original program name was AAWSAP, I located an online copy of the 32 page DIA solicitation inviting firms to submit bids to undertake the AAWSAP for the DIA. The number of this solicitation was HHM402-08-R-0211.

So, what was George Knapp looking for with HHM402-08-C-0072? I have searched the net for an answer. Even the Loren Data Federal Business Opportunities website, which records every solicitation and subsequent contract is silent on the nature of 0072. At the moment, only George Knapp knows the answer to why 0072?

Please see the update at the end of this post for the solution to 0072!

8. Request [00239] is from one Steven Aftergood and sought "...a copy of the list that was recently transmitted to Congress of all DIA products produced..." under AATIP.

Some background is in order here. In a blog post date 15 August 2018, it was announced that a reference to the AATIP had been found in the "Congressional Record" dated 9 April 2018. A letter had gone from the DIA to Congress advising a list of "products" produced by AATIP.

In a 17 January 2019 article titled "More Light on Black Program to Track UFOs" Steven Aftergood revealed that he had acquired a list of the AATIP "products" from his FOIA request dated 15 August 2018 (responded to by the DIA on 16 January 2019.)

In summary

Almost no-one who has submitted an FOIA request to the DIA regarding the AATIP/AAWSAP has received a final response. If you did submit a 2017/2018 request, and have received a final response, I'd like to hear from you, at keithbasterfield@yahoo.com.au

The full DIA FOIA Log may be read here. 

Update: 24 May 2019

As can be seen in the comments section below, I received an anonymous comment, with some excellent information about the detail mentioned in George Knapp's DIA FOIA request.

My informant located a DIA document where HHM402-08-C-0072 was mentioned in a listing, and writes:

"HHM402-08-C-0072 is referred to as the contract PIIN (Procurement Instrument Identification Number)...is an identifier that consists of 13 alpha-numeric characters grouped to convey certain information. The first six numbers are the DodAAC; seven and eight are the fiscal year the PIIN was assigned; 9 is a letter representing the instrument type, and 10-13 are the four digit serial number.

"Now I would say that the "C" is the important digit here. And it would seem to represent the description of the "instrument type." Contracts of all types except indefinite delivery contracts, facility contracts, sales contracts, and contracts placed with or through other Government departments or agencies or against contracts placed by such departments or agencies outside the DoD."

In the list provided, which is a 240 page document; on page 14 there is a line which reads:

HHM402-08-R-0211
HHM402-08-C-0072
19-Sep-08
20080910.

Here, HHM402-08-R-0211 is the number of the solicitation; HHM402-08-C-0072 is the contract PIIN; 19-Sep-08 is the issue date of the contract; and 20080910 is the offer due date.

So, the mystery of HHM402-08-C-0072 is solved!

Further update 24 May 2019

Today, Jack Brewer [FOIA number 00088] advised me, that in his blog post dated 26 May 2018 he reported the result of his request. He originally submitted the request on 23 December 2017; and the DIA response, dated 17 May 2018, was "Despite a thorough search, no documents responsive to your request were found."

Jacques Vallee on the National Institute for Discovery Science

Background

Given the recent interest in the activities of Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) and its involvement in the Defense Intelligence Agency's Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP) between 2007-2012,  some people are still unaware that Robert Bigelow, Las Vegas property developer, had previously operated a similar organization, interested in both the subjects of UAP, and the paranormal.

Bigelow's National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS) operated between 1995 and 2004. Via the Wayback Machine on the Internet it is still possible to explore some of the NIDS (now defunct) website.

With the January 2019 release of Jacques Vallee's latest book "Forbidden Science:Volume Four" there is an opportunity to gain some insights into the thinking of Robert Bigelow, and his NIDS, and hence into the BAASS operated AAWSAP. The following is a summary of the information contained in a number of Vallee's diary entries, which relate to the NIDS.

The formation of  the NIDS

Vallee records that Robert Bigelow rang him on 16 July 1995, and informed him that he, Bigelow was not going to continue with his funding of the "UFO Coalition" of the three major US UAP groups. Instead Bigelow intended to establish a new Institute.

"I want to work directly with the people who do research. New blood is desperately needed, there's no scientific discipline among ufologists. I'm forming an Institute and I want to attract world-class scientists to study UFOs and the paranormal including consciousness beyond death. I want you to think about it." (page 257.)

The next day Bigelow phoned again, to discuss his plans; outlining his need for 'a director who's good at administration but also understands the phenomenon.' Vallee writes 'There was a time when I would have jumped at such a job...'" (page 258.)

On 25 July 1995, Vallee and Bigelow met in person. Bigelow brought along a proposed organization chart. On 11 August 1995, Vallee advised Bigelow that he declined the position of the project's director, although he would consider a position on the NIDS science board.

Eight days later, Vallee and Hal Puthoff met the board of the NIDS. Initial members were Dean Radin and Diane Arcangel.

On 1 November 1995, Bigelow advised Vallee "of progress on our board of advisors" (page 294.) The chair was to be Dr Kit Green, Members would be Hal Puthoff, Marty Pilch, Dean Judd, General Jim Whinnery, John  Petersen, Emily Cook. Bigelow was trying to get Jessica Utts, Bruce Grayson, Senator Harrison Schmidt and Richard Deckart. Discussions between Green and Vallee, revealed that Green had laid down a number of conditions to Bigelow concerning the running of the Science Board, before accepting the position of Chair. At that point Vallee agreed to join the Science Board, as a member.

However, on 7 January 1996, Vallee writes that Bigelow on the phone had said "I applied the brakes because we didn't have the right management in place yet." (page 287.) Bigelow confirmed interviewing for three positions; namely two in the area of consciousness, and one in the area of aerial phenomena, Ron Blackburn, De Angelo of SAIC, Larry Lemke from Ames, were contacted. John Alexander spoke to Dr Robert Morris, and Dr Ken Ring.

First meeting

The NIDS Science Advisory Board (SAB) met once in December 1995 for an organizational meeting. Vallee was not present.

Second meeting

This was held in Las Vegas on 28 January 1996. There, Diane Arcangel was assembling a library; Air Force Lt Col Peter McDuff; Hal Puthoff; Dr Kenneth Klivington; Marty Pilch; John Petersen; Harrison Schmidt; JohnDale Solem; Dean Judd; were all present. Jessica Utts, Air Force Brigadier General Jim Whinnery; Emily Williams Cook; Ted Rockwell; John Alexander were also there. The meeting discussed NIDS' goals, visions and mission. Discussion ensued on Bigelow's dual focii for NIDS, to be on UAP, and survival after death. Las Vegas journalist George Knapp presented to the meeting about his research trip to the USSR.

At this meeting, Vallee learned that Bigelow became interested in survival researc "'after his 22-year old son died a few years ago in the desert. Bigelow became interested in UAP because he'd experienced unusual phenomenon as a child, with his grandparents." (page 296.)

Third meeting

The third NIDS SAB meeting occurred on 31 March 1996. Two new members attended, one of whom was Dr Ian Stevenson. Dean Jude was absent. NIDS had connected with Illebrand Von Ludwiger, (abduction researcher in Germany/Austria); Chad Deetken had been sent to Puerto Rico; and Peter McDuff, went to Mexico concerning UFO sightings. Puthoff and Alexander had visited Colonel P Corso. Dr Roger Leir and Derrel Sims presented on alien implants; and abduction researcher John Carpenter also presented to the SAB. Later Vallee, and Alexander met with Corso to obtain more details on Corso's claims.

Fourth meeting

On 1 June 1996, the fourth NIDS SAB meeting took place. There were three presentations by General Whinnery, re effects of g=forces on pilots and the relationship to consciousness. Former NASA astronaut Edgar Mitchell spoke about near-death experiences. On the question of implant analysis; the implants were found to contain common elements, and the SAB seemed to lean towards them being pieces of conventional metal, which had somehow, embedded in the human body.

Fifth meeting

The fifth meeting was on 3 August 1996. Senator Harry Reid attended the presentation which Vallee gave. The NIDS had hired three scientists as staff members,namely a biochemist; a molecular biologist, and a physicist (Dr Eric Davis.) By September 1996, the NIDS employed 11 people; 6 full time; and had purchased the Mount Wilson ranch in Nevada.

Present for part of the meeting were Ian Stevenson, and Bruce Grayson, plus Prof John Mack and associates. There was discussion on a possible partnership between PEER and NIDS. A mathematician Gian-Carlo Rota also joined the meeting.

Vallee writes "Administration issues threatened to bog down the discussion, starting with the changing definition of the Institute, no longer a granting agency. Bob wants to turn it into a working body that performs its own research and building relationships with centers of expertise, so, never delegating the analysis. Thus the SAB is elected as  working group rather than, merely a review and strategy board." (page 322.)

The biochemist was Dr Colm Kelleher; the microbiologist and veterinarian is George Onet, and the physicist was Dr Eric W Davis. The other permanent staff are John Alexander, a secretary and a receptionist. Also employed part time was George Knapp; Diane Arcangel; a Canadian studying cattle mutilations, and Shelley Wadsworth a local resident, in Nevada.

Sixth meeting

10 January 1997 saw the sixth NIDS SAB meeting take place. John Petersen presented on alternate futures; Bob Bigelow on the chronology of NIDS, and there was a summary of the NIDS budget.

"Bob outlined a new plan with two parts. Division I is devoted to 'survival of the human consciousness...Division II, 'Aerial Phenomena' continues surveillance of both properties, networking with ranchers, veterinarians and the police on mutilations and sample analysis.' (page 350.) John Dale Solem critiqued their work on implants. Jack Schmidt presented on lessons learned during hearings on mutilations in the 1970's. There was also, a brainstorming session about sensors and detection.

Vallee writes "it's clear the Board will not be consulted or even kept informed about grants funded by NIDS, such as John Mack's work." (page 352.)

My comment:

According to the above diary entry, both the Utah and the Nevada ranches were being surveilled. Details of the Utah ranch have been published in part; however, I can find no mention of the results of surveillance of the second, Wilson, Nevada, ranch.

Seventh meeting

This took place on 9 March 1997. Jessica Utts presented on the subject of statistics in parapsychology. George Onet reported on necropsy of a mutilated cow. Bigelow showed a TV documentary about near-death experiences.

Vallee found out that through the Institute, Bob Bigelow is channeling money to:

(1) A European book by Von Ludwiger.
(2) John Mack's exploration of multiple witness abduction cases.
(3) Immunology related to NDEs by Kelleher and Melvin Morse.
(4) Communication devices built by Putoff.
(5) John Petersen's "Day after" scenarios.
(6) An evaluation of mediums by Stevenson and Cook.
(7) A cattle mutilation survey by Onet.
(8) A seminar series on survival of consciousness led by Alexander.
(9) A crop circle study by Kit and Kristin (Green's life partner), with Kelleher and Deetken.
(10) A new Roper poll.

My comment:

On 7 June 1999, NIDS circulated a press release titled "How would humans react if ET landed" which provided the results of the (10) Roper poll on that particular "Day After" scenario.

Vallee writes "The hard truth is that the NIDS board is too busy trying to invent gadgets and feed their own projects to stop and think seriously about science fundamentals and the deeper nature of the phenomenon." (page 360.)

Eighth meeting

The eight meeting was on 2 May 1997. "Steve Trevino, who had just made a presentation to Kit and Bob, was there as well as Tommy Blann, an investigator from Texas, who now lives in Florida. An evening session was held to discuss cattle mutilations.

Vallee writes "Another aspect of the phenomenon that had become clear is its human origin. Carcasses have suffered injections and traction by clamps or other devices. It is common for the animals to be dropped, sometimes from considerable heights. Also common is the sight of helicopters." (page 365.)

"The Science Board spent most of the day discussing the Utah ranch in closed session. Three members were missing: Ian Stevenson, Melvin Morse and GianaCarlo. So there were thirteen of us with Bob..." (page 365.)

Edgard Mitchell gave a summary of the April 8-10 1997 Greer briefings.

'Most of the afternoon was spent discussing candidates for the position of consciousness at UNLV." (page 369.)

Ninth meeting

At the ninth meeting on 19 July 1997 "Ian Stevenson, Emily Cook and Bruce Grayson have sent abrasive letters criticizing the lack of research." (page 377.)

"We heard good staff reports about the Utah ranch." (page 378.)

Tenth meeting

17 October 1997 saw the tenth SAB meeting. "'What if two-way communication does happen?' Bob asked. He is convinced that one-way exchanges (from 'them' to Eric) have already taken place, in the form of telepathic messages and dreams." (page 391.)

"Chad Deetken gave an impassioned, but unscientific description of the English crop circle around Alton Barn and Silberry Hill. He discounted the hoax hypothesis." (page 392.)

"In the afternoon I said it was time to reinvent the Institute. We had lost sight of our constituency; I emphasized: do we work for the public good? The scientific community? Paranormal researchers? There was an urgent need to tighten up our procedures and to better protect our people in the field. I suggested using the Nevada (Wilson) ranch as a control site against the Utah property." (page 392.)

Eleventh meeting

The eleventh meeting took place on 11 January 1998. "Colm gave an excellent report on work at the ranch, then discussions centred on Bob's  plans to raise the visibility of 'aerial phenomena' to the national level. Against Kit''s protestations he led us through elaborate exercises designed to align us to his scheme. I stressed that the aspect of NIDS I most admired was precisely that we hadn't tried to grab headlines." (page 401.)

"The Utah ranch is quiet...There hasn't been a single new case of a physical UFO there." (page 401.)

Vallee missed part of this meeting so Bigelow filled him in on Bigelow's proposal to sponsor two new studies, "on the subject of the social effect of an announcement of (1) a major asteroid fall and (2) the reality of UFOs as extraterrestrial craft." (page 402.)

Vallee on Bigelow. "He has a deeper agenda, an inner certainty that a dramatic development (spectacular display by the phenomenon or striking announcement by the government) will happen 'soon.' When I pointed out that research at the ranch could lead to a statement about the reality of UFOs, however, he said he'd practically given up on this, the evidence would never be good enough...Yet Bob believes there is an MJ-12 and that the Phenomenon has done things that could have large impact, but the public was appraised as not being ready." (page 402.)

Twelfth meeting

The 12th meeting was on 25 April 1998.  "...is our Institute becoming 'just another Shirley Maclaine with lasers?' someone asked with humor."

"After the last session Bigelow spoke to Kit on the phone for a long time, trying to convince him that events at the ranch were real and couldn't be explained on psychological grounds." (page 409.)

Thirteenth meeting

Martin Pilch chaired the meeting on 11 July 1998. There was a review of the Sturrock/Rockefeller project. Colm Kelleher reported on the ranch.

Fourteenth meeting

At the 10 October 1998 meeting, "The group reviewed the first three years of NIDS." (page 420.)

"Today the Board...tackled the challenge posed by Bob Bigelow of engaging the scientific community. I said it didn't make sense to speak in the same sentence of getting visibility with the public AND with science (two radically different things,) impressing the media while gaining the confidence of secret sources (an obvious contradiction) taking an advocacy position while research is incomplete and crusading for the extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis while testing theories that may not involve ETH at all."

"Look at the data from the Utah ranch," I said, "where we have every paranormal phenomenon except for flying saucers." (page 426.)

Fifteenth meeting

Vallee noted about the 8 January 1999 meeting, "Bob Bigelow is still fascinated with 'Day After' scenarios...he went over the history of our efforts, from the initial interest to appeal to the military to the more recent idea of having our own contingency plan if it turned out, as he put it, that 'we are cohabiting on the Earth with non-human entities that controlled our destiny.'" (page 439.)

There was a lecture by Michael Lindemann, futurist. Puthoff put Lindemann in touch with Petersen, "which led to the idea of running 'First Contact' scenarios under the sponsorship of Firmage. For silly reasons were not supposed to know that Joe is involved. We ended up discussing Kairos. Al Harrison pointed out that 'After spending $2 million Firmage had failed to have any impact. The idea of going to the public is fundamentally flawed.' That took some wind out of Bob Bigelow's sails. Yet he remains convinced we are confronted with a 'scenario-selecting agent,' which implies that 'our state of acceptance will determine when and how confirmation occurs.' (pp439-440.)

"Bob got up to dictate our new role: to provide information on sightings and other events. Bob and Colm will contact us twice and each member will be expected to call with current information. With a group as busy as this, I don't think that's realistic. Bob' strengths as a visionary business manager (high demand for on-time results, quantifiable budgets with tight schedules) are not the best tools in fundamental research: one needs to pick extraordinary staff members and trust them: to give them the opportunity to fail." (page 440.)

"Bob...told me about changes planned around the Institute. I recommended a sober, quiet, non-flashy approach to the Congressional research Service as a reliable, low-key, respected gateway to senior legislators. " (page 441.)

The Utah ranch and UAP

Why was the Utah ranch selected? The answer lies on page 326, in a diary entry dated 15 August 1996. Vallee, speaking about a ranch in Nevada which was being looked at by Bigelow, with a view to purchase, writes "...another more interesting situation had popped up - a ranch in Utah where cattle mutilations, strange lights and bizarre objects were being reported 'almost daily.'"

However, as far as UAP went, Vallee points out, the volume of the UAP events at the Utah ranch was extremely low. On page 353 of his book, Vallee cites meeting with three NIDS staffers. "Expectations of frequent sightings of UFOs at the Utah ranch have not materialized." they said, "so what are we supposed to work on?"

By 11 January 1998, (page 401) "The Utah ranch is quiet, with no new incidents. There hasn't been a single new case of a physical UFO there."

And by 10 October 1998 (page 426) Vallee says "Look at the data from the Utah ranch" I said, "where we have every paranormal phenomena - except for flying saucers."

The NIDS mission

Initially, Robert Bigelow stated "I want to work directly with the people who do the research" as cited by Vallee on 16 July 1995. Vallee states (3 August 1996) "Bob wants to turn it into a working body that performs its own research." On 10 January 1997, "Bob outlined a new plan..." By 9 March 1997, the Institute was funding projects across the areas of abductions, near-death experiences; cattle mutilations; and crop circles. On 10 October 1998, Bigelow wished the SAB to see how best to engage the scientific community. On 9 January 1999, "Bob got up to dictate our new role, to provide information on sightings."

It seems to me, on reading the discussions on the mission of the NIDS, that it kept changing, and this was solely at Bigelow's instigation.

Parallels between the NIDS and BAASS

Some parallels can be drawn between the 1995-1999 NIDS era, and the later 2007 to 2012 AAWSAP BAASS contract era.

In a 19 March 2018 interview with former Senator Harry Reid, the New York Magazine revealed that Bigelow, around 2006/2007  received a letter from a senior employee of a federal national security agency. That employee told Bigelow "I want to go to your ranch in Utah." After which, the employee visited the ranch and was impressed enough that they assisted Reid by writing the AAWSAP Defense Intelligence Agency solicitation document. Although Reid does not provide the employee's name, the DIA documentation states that the AAWSAP manager was one James T Lacatski.

Journalist George Knapp, and film producer Jeremy Corbell, both insist that the Utah ranch was a focus of the BAASS investigation (BAASS received the AAWSAP contract.)

However, the DIA solicitation is silent about anything to do with  activities on any ranch. Hence, here is an obvious contradiction, which is impossible to unravel without direct input from James T Lacatski and Robert Bigelow. Neither of whom have ever spoken publicly about this.

Given Vallee's comments about the level of UAP activity, at the Utah ranch between 1995 and 1999, one can pose the question as to what was the level of UAP activity when Lacatski visited the ranch around 2006/2007? Was it the UAP activity or other paranormal activity which caught his attention? If it was the paranormal attention, then how come the DIA solicitation document doesn't mention this?

In summary

The diary entries in Vallee's latest book, allow us some deeper insights about the thinking of Robert Bigelow, and the work of the NIDS, than I had previously had.

The 2019 projects of to The Stars Academy of Arts & Science Inc.

Introduction

The to The Stars Academy of Arts & Sciences Incorporated (TTSA) filed its latest report with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on 30 April 2019. These filings allow interested parties to take a look inside the company's activities; information about which, may not be available in other ways. The following, is a condensed version of part of the filing, of interest to me.

Entertainment division

The filing, provides details about the following products in 2019:

1. Doc-series on A &E's History Channel - a six part series titled "Unidentified." Scheduled to commence in May.

2."Sekret Machines." Non-fiction series, Book 2:Man.

3. "Strange Times." TV series. In development at TBS.

4. "Monsters of California." Feature film. In development with Cartel Entertainment.

5. "Sekret Machines." TV series. In development with Cartel Entertainment.

Aerospace Division

The company has completed the statement of work on the beamed energy propulsion launch system.

Steve Justice - Aerospace Division Director

Science Division

1. Continuing evaluation of quantum communication technology ( click here for more information on this project ) and possible exotic materials, the A.D.A.M. Research Project.

2. The TTSA's online community of interest is to be renamed THE VAULT. "We have created a requirement study document defining objectives for the full capability version of THE VAULT." The vision is for "an online collection, storage and analysis point for information regarding events, witness and data reporting associated with advanced technology and capabilities."

In 2019 there are plans to release a mobile app " that will enable data collection directly from the public at large."

3. Subcontracts: "In 2018, the company initiated research subcontracts in materials studies and beamed energy totaling $60,000. These contracts are to be completed in 2019. The company incurred $226,681 and $5,750 in third-party and internal costs towards R & D efforts in development of the company's projects during 2018 and 2017, respectively." For further information on these projects, click here and here. 

On the difficulty of proving UAP "fragments" are extraterrestrial - updated

UAP "fragments"

In recent times, there has been much re-newed interest in the potential "fragments" from Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon; and in particular, the topic of analyses of such material.

To The Stars Academy

Last July, the To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science, launched its A.D.A.M. project which aimed to collect and analyze "materials reported to have come from advanced aerospace vehicles of unknown origin."  Then followed a series of blog posts on their website discussing the project.

In September, I wrote a blog piece about the letting of a US$35,000 contract between TTSA and EarthTech International for the analysis of several "fragments."

At the 27 October, 2018, Centro Ufologico Nazionale UAP conference in Rome, Italy, Luis Elizondo of TTSA, showed a slide of a collection of images, which he referred to as material in the possession of TTSA, which was being analyzed.

At the March 2019, conference of the Scientific Coalition for Ufology, held in Huntsville, Alabama, Elizondo again showed that same slide. He stated:

" What makes this material so special? Now, in some cases, this material was told it's special. Through analysis, guess what? Not so special. But some of it is absolutely special. I won't point out which ones on that slide but there are some that are absolutely special and have been briefed to some very, very senior levels of the government, and they do remarkable and extraordinary things and they're built in such a way that to this day we still can't replicate them."

However, to date, there have been no documents released, providing details of the analysis of these "special" materials, and it seems that the public release of any such detail, will not occur until the TTSA/History channel six part series, scheduled to commence in the US at the end of May 2019. It is uncertain, whether or not, TTSA will publish a peer reviewed article in a major materials science journal. While I, in general, support the work being undertaken by the TTSA, the apparent direction for us to learn of the analysis results is hardly a scientific one - simply entertainment.

Lee Speigel

On the 8 January 2019 podcast on the "Open Minds News Radio" program, one of the guests was former Huffington Post journalist, Lee Speigel. Speigel talked about UAP related materials. Thanks to researcher Joe Murgia, we have a transcript of Speigel's segment.  In part, Speigal says:

"...The number one story, may be, for me...what's still floating around is the idea that there's a lot of competition out there among UFO researchers and scientists over the analysis of alleged fragments or pieces of UFOs.  This is a very big story. And even I, recently, had a unique opportunity to see and hold some reportedly, real UFO material that's being analyzed now by scientists that aren't yet ready to go public with their amazing findings. But they will. And I can say...I can say that with total certainty because I was there, in their laboratory... They're gonna release it to science and say "Here's what we've come up with. We can conclude very definitely that some of these fragments were not naturally formed and that they were manufactured by someone... They will be able to conclude that some of these fragments are not from Earth..."

Queried by Alejandro Rojas whether or not he was talking about the TTSA, Speigel responded that no, it was not TTSA he was referring to, and not Robert Bigelow either. Unfortunately, the above, generalized statement fails to add any detail to the topic. Certainly, there was no data provided to back up the statements which Speigel made. I understand, yet again, similar to the  TTSA approach, that Speigel and partner will report upon the analysis work of the unnamed laboratory, in a feature film to be released later in 2019.

Joe Murgia speculated, that the individuals whom Speigel was referring to, were Jacques Vallee, and Dr Garry Nolan.

Dr Garry Nolan

Professor Garry Nolan is the Rachford and Carlota A Harris Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Stanford University School of Medicine. He was interviewed by author and researcher, M J Banias on 29 April 2019. Their conversation mainly involved the areas of Dr Nolan's work with Dr Kit Green and their cohort of patients who had apparently sustained injuries arising from their encounters with the phenomenon; and the work Dr Nolan was undertaking with Jacques Vallee on materials analysis.

Regarding their materials analysis work, I directed the following question to Dr Nolan, through Banias: "Is there a peer reviewed paper anywhere in the near future that the community can expect?"

Dr Nolan gave an extended response, to the question, which I listened to on YouTube. Later, in communicating with Dr Nolan, he offered to clarify some of the points he mentioned. So, the following is a combination of his conversational response, and some additional material.

"Yes...some initial studies showed unusual isotopic ratios and Jacques has talked about them publicly so I'm comfortable talking about that. So what we are doing right now, is I'm doing this work personally. The recent work that Jacques showed, I did the experiments myself, but not the historical stuff Peter Sturrock for instance, here at Stanford did collaborating with Jacques in the past. Others had done some isotopic analysis work as well, and we have confirmed some of those efforts.

My point is at this stage, as much as some of the (non-mainstream) journals that have published this stuff are credible, they are unfortunately not the journals that anybody in the mainstream is paying attention to. The journals people are paying attention to are like, Nature Materials, Nature Photonics, and Aeronautical journals. So, we've convinced a couple of those major journals that if we put together a credible paper that looks like there are credible conclusions, then they will send the paper out for peer review. That doesn't mean they will publish the work, but they will send it out for peer review, to make sure and double check our results. I expect we will probably get push back like I got push back with the Atacama results at the beginning. But the feedback made it a better paper. So, that's what we will do. So yes, we plan open publication.

So, right now what we are doing are confirmations of our initial results. We are taking it round to those who are specialists in mass spectrometry and metallurgy, to ask "Ok, where could I have made a mistake? What could be the contaminating artifacts in the information here that are leading to me to make the wrong conclusion  - and hopefully prevent me from potentially making a fool of myself?

That's why you go to the experts - which we have done in some of these cases. Sometimes you tell them what it is, and the provenance. Sometimes, you say, hey I've got this stuff, I'm trying to find out what it is. Does this make sense - is this possible? Given we know what this is made of, ( i.e. the elements and the isotopes) could I get apparently altered ratios by some strange surface chemistry that leads me to misinterpret the results? So, let's talk about some of the isotopes. I think there's magnesium in a couple of the samples of Jacques that have strange ratios. So, are the unexpected magnesium ratios because Mg26 is more likely to bond  to something in the material or less able to be ionized, and therefore make it look like it has got a different isotope ratio than it actually has?  And maybe that's the case because that magnesium 26 is in the context of something  else in the sample. Total speculation,but I've learned to be careful. So, apparent isotope ration difference might have nothing to do with aliens, or other worldly anything, and it is only to do with the physical structure of the material that makes what we think we're seeing to be somewhat off natural, when it is in fact truly "normal."

Here the message is to other people that I know , who are out there, who are doing this kind of analytical work on these materials; be very careful. A couple of things that we thought were off, have very conventional explanations, and you have to go to the expert, or you will make a fool of yourself. And you will discredit anything that you're trying to do. And the people who are listening, who know what I am doing with these materials- who know I know who they are, and that I have told this to them privately, but now I'm telling them publicly.

That's why I am interested in the material work that Jacques brought to the table. It's because, of, all the many things things that can be done, the materials are "reproducible." We can cut those samples into many pieces as Jacques would tolerate. Send it to people in laboratories - to confirm it. We've done that in some cases. So, we're getting these validations and we're checking with the necessary experts. Then, we'll write up a simple paper that will make no claim to anything, other than the fact that here's the composition of the stuff and here's the story of how it was found. End of story.

The hanging question there, should the materials be truly anomalous, is how did they get made? People (humans) don't play with isotopic ratios easily. Ask yourself what do people do with isotopic ratios now (with current technology)? What do we modify isotopes for, or what have we been doing with isotopes for the last 60 years? Blow stuff up...uranium and plutonium...imaging or killing ...cancer cells...nothing very subtle.

Chemistry and physics have not caught up with why you might use titanium 46 versus titanium 47 (plus one neutron)...what is different about the magnesium ratios in the sample that I know Hal has, and I have a sample that was given to me by Leslie. So, why would somebody alter those ratios? The cost to change isotopic ratios is considerable, especially given the provenance: that is, some of these materials date back decades, when the ability to make those changes was so costly that why would you make a big chunk of it and throw it out in the desert?...why would you bother?...I can tell you right now there is simply no industrial/material reason to alter the ratios.

(Talking of the use of the word "alloys by TTSA.) "So, I wrote an internal memo to TTSA at the time I was involved with them and said these aren't alloys. These materials, do not think of them as alloys. We need to change the conversation. You need to call them metamaterials - so I'd like to lay claim to the use of that term (this was a memo in response to the Scientific American article about the Tic Tacs saying that humans basically know all there is to know about alloys.) These are more complex, and if anything, you need to call them ultramaterials because metamaterials are pretty well understood....basically that's a repeated atomic architecture that performs a single purpose.

So, I took some of the material from Jacques to some people at Stanford, and I said - this is interesting, and you tell them a little bit about it. They will sometimes reply, if you can interest them that " Well I have this or that instrument, and I'll get back to you, and tell you something about this, that, the other of it..." They can inform us whether you've seen this in any aeronautical industry materials before. And if they come back and tell me, yes this is something from Pratt and Whitley circa 1955, I'm like, thank you, now I can go do something else..."

Premature disclosure

In a recent document titled "A preliminary catalogue of alleged "fragments" reportedly associated with sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena where analysis(es) was/were conducted" I offer dozens of cases where such material underwent analysis. The results vary from the mundane, to cases claiming an extraterrestrial origin had been proven.

A classic example of the latter occurred on 4 July 1997, at a conference held in Roswell, New Mexico, when a Dr VernonClark announced the results of his tests on a sample given to Dr Roger Leir in August 1995 by an individual who stated the fragment came from the 1947 Roswell "crash."

VernonClark announced that the sample showed significant variations from normal isotopic composition found on Earth; and that he could only conclude that the sample had been manufactured and was extraterrestrial in origin. Needless to say, UFO researchers celebrated the announcement.

However, in subsequent weeks, VernonClark retreated from this definitive conclusion, citing that he had been misquoted. Yet his published written results were available for anyone to look at. He is quoted as saying "In retrospect, with 20-20 hindsight, I would have preferred to have more work done..."

Twelve years on,VernonClark's results are generally accepted to have been in error, derived from poor analytical techniques.

It seems to me, that most UFO researchers have failed to understand the complexity of the process by which analysis is undertaken. Note that Dr Garry Nolan, in his statement above, said:

"I'm really talking to other people that I know , who are out there, who are doing this kind of work; be vary careful. A couple of things that we thought were off, have very conventional explanations, and you have to go to the expert, or you will make a fool of yourself. And you will discredit anything that you're trying to do. And the people who are listening, who know what I am - who know who they are, I told this to them privately, but now I'm telling them publicly."

Chris Cogwell

Christopher F Cogwell holds a PhD in chemical engineering with a focus on the study of nanomaterials. In August 2018 he posted a detailed article about the methodology which he considered necessary to be followed when conducting materials analysis. In part he stated:

"We would want to identify if the material has come from outer space by comparing it to similar materials or samples we find on Earth. Does it show significant enough difference to cause us to believe it did not come from our planet?

Second is there evidence that the material has been engineered or designed in some way? Does it show properties or applications that we wouldn't expect to occur naturally, or is it engineered or composed in such a way to give it specific properties?

An third, does it show advanced techniques or knowledge with which we are unfamiliar. Are there super-heavy elements which we have yet to discover here on Earth, does it show crystal structure or solid phases that have not yet been observed by the materials science community, does it show composition and engineering which is beyond the scope of science today?"

His article goes on to describe the types of testing which could be undertaken, and the methodology for such testing.

He concludes:

" As far as can be gleaned from the information available to the general public, it appears that efforts to date concerning the analysis of solids potentially occurring from some unknown civilization have focused on the first class of studies, those concerning the elements making up the material and their isotopes. However, as has been suggested by this work that is only a small portion of the entire picture needed before any definitive conclusions can be made."

Chris Cogwell issued a warning:

"Of particular concern to the interested public should be any study that purports to give evidence without clearly reporting in detail their methodology, potential sources of error, the accuracy of their measurements, and other information required to replicate their results."

Publication

Following upon the finding of any anomaly in one of these samples, the next step is to publish the results, to enable discussion among the scientific and UAP communities. Here lies a difficulty, respectable journals so far, have failed to publish such articles. So, it is of interest to note the approach taken by Dr Garry Nolana and Jacques Vallee in their joint work.

In summary

The words of Chris Cogwell; Dr Garry Nolan; Jacques Vallee (in private correspondence to the author) and others, urges us to take care when examining the results claimed by some UFO researchers, and even scientists such as Dr VernonClark, regarding analyses of UAP related material.

What is needed, is a multi-pronged methodology along the lines proposed by Chris Cogwell, and a well documented chain of custody for samples. Then, if a sample does indeed indicate genuine anomalies, along the lines Cogwell suggests; and the full results; are available in an article in a peer reviewed materials science or similar journal, we may be able to  claim that we do indeed have a "fragment"from the phenomenon.

Until then, in my opinion, we need to beware of undocumented proclamations of "special" materials which do "remarkable and extraordinary things."