Billy, can you email me at jphil05750@aol.com re: subscription renewal

Expand full comment

"Apparently unequipped with any meaningful historical perspective, the public faces of the Pentagon" ... and where is the USAF in all this?

Billy, have you read the real scholarship (I read these when they came out in 1998 and 2000) of Prof. Michael Swords papers on "Project Sign and the Estimate of the Situation" and "A Different View of "Roswell - Anatomy of a Myth". Can be found easily on the Web. We know Sign (started in January 1948, finished 7 months later) was a USAF study and from the first paper investigators concluded after many case studies "extraterrestrial" as an explanation. This was knocked down by the Pentagon as unacceptable. Why? By the summer of 1948 there would be clear proof no human techno. could explain the cases and the investigators were highly technical. So why not accepted? The logical conclusion is some very few knew extraterrestrial as *real* (now we suppose other possibilities but at the very least not human-made) and the Sign team were not to be privy to this. How did some really know as real? Not just sightings. A crash? I also read the Sign Estimate was destroyed. Ok, let's destroy something to do with what we know as real, i.e. the objects flying around. That does make sense.

Roswell happened on July 8 1947 and if true (as non-human techno.) would explain:

1. The batting down of the (obviously highly secret) Estimate in the summer of 1948. .

2. The unusual "silence" from Pentagon higher-ups two weeks after early July 1947, when investigators (pre Project Sign) were puzzled as to little seeming interest of their investigations (the beginning of "the cover up"). But now we know there's also "Trinity" to do with Jacques Vallee's research of a crash in 1945. Were some very few informed in 1947, "guys, we've actually another one from 1945, we're going to have to devise a plan for everyone who doesn't need to know"? A bigot list.

Something also out there I read years back to do with senior NASA engineer Clark Mcllelland. He said he spoke to Wernher von Braun (as we know in charge of developing the Saturn-V that put Americans on the Moon and the Nazi scientist V-2 rocket designer) who said he was called to the Roswell site crash to do an inspection of the craft. This has always fascinated me when I read and stuck in my head knowing the huge credentials of Mcllelland. It also makes sense. Von Braun would know propulsion like few else and also have top-secret clearance for his rocket work. He told Clark what he saw, part of which is ... "The interior of the craft was nearly bare of equipment, as if the creatures and craft were part of a single unit."

Then there's physics knowledge at the time. Richard Feynman had just developed his model of quantum theory in 1948 which would become standard (QT was invented in the 1920's), and there was work on quantum fields. The nucleus was known to have protons and neutrons (good enough models for nuclear weapons) and the shell model of the nucleus was introduced in 1948. General relativity (Einstein gravity) was accepted but with no practical technical applications. No models of neutron/proton structure - that came 20 years later. Obvious to say, propellers, rockets and jets for flight. Nuclear propulsion was hypothesized by those working on the UFOs. They kind of "had to". Nothing made sense how the things flew and I doubt the investigating engineers had deep up to date knowledge of physics. Feynman had only just published and his work was impenetrable. Only physicists at the level of Oppenheimer knew nuclear physics.

I just don't know man. Michael Swords scholarship is fascinating. Clark Mcllelland so interesting. The von Braun site visit makes perfect sense. And atomic physics was clearly in its infancy. I also just read the fascinating Prof. Kevin Knuth article at UAPx who suggests UAPs could be "living beings". Heck. Why would he say that?

And the USAF was involved from the very beginning, if all this fits somehow.

Expand full comment

**Prof. Kevin Knuth article at UAPx who suggests UAPs could be "living beings". Heck. Why would he say that?**

I believe that the crafts themselves all have AI and there own personalities per se

Expand full comment

I haven't read the two pieces you've referenced, but the collaborative history that Swords and Robert Powell produced in 2012 -- "UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry" -- should be mandatory reading for anyone unfamiliar with the USAF's central role in today's status quo.

Expand full comment

Absolutely, I know of this but haven't read.

Expand full comment

Where the fuck is the Air Force?

They're hiding like little bitches under the front porch with a tarp pulled over them.

I've met/kinda know at least one Air Force pilot who said they've seen "things" and others have seen "things" and nobody talks about it.

The Air Force is too scared to come clean because they're more afraid of how bad they'll look than worried about a mid-air collision with a UAP. Maybe that's what took down TWA Flight 800 and they don't want to admit they know.

Expand full comment

Where's the 'AATIP' research?

Everyone knows that AATIP was Elizondo's $22m internal investigation of military UFO sightings... except the $22m went to BAASS for the AAWSAP contract tech reports and Skinwalker research. But he was still funded, initially, so he claims.

Everyone knows his research concluded there was evidence for the '5 observables'... https://www.history.com/news/ufo-sightings-speed-appearance-movement Except that conclusion was taken from the AAWSAP report summary of the Nimitz events.

But still, under his Directorship AATIP must have discovered solid evidence supporting those 5 observables which would make those investigations the most important UFO/UAP research documents known to exist - far too important not to be commented upon during the public hearing... but all we got was one mention of AATIP which could have been a reference to AAWSAP's nickname under which the 38 tech reports were reported to Congress.

So why isn't anyone screaming from the rooftops that Congress should be studying the AATIP UAP reports, or tracking them down if Garry Reid did actually hide them? Why, when Elizondo was asked on 'Need to Know' "what will Congress be discussing in the classified portion?", Elizondo replied "sources and methods'. Why didn't he mention classified UAP reports including his own?

*** The best evidence gathered on the planet *** ? Where the flip is it? Why doesn't it get a mention by anyone, including its project director?

Expand full comment

This process, if that what it turns out to be, will likely be incremental. While I'm pretty sure AATIP was used interchangeably with AAWSAP at last week's hearing, committee members are new to this topic. The questions that seem obvious to those who've followed this mystery for any length of time are likely a ways down the road for U.S. reps who deal with the day-to-day machinations of reality on the Hill.

Expand full comment

The whole raison d'etre of the exercise is to investigate UAP, and Elizondo has been quite vocal about resigning because he couldn't get an appointment to show evidence to SECDEF Mattis. I can't imagine the individuals at the hearing weren't cognizant of what brought them all together, especially given their desire to gather evidence.

None of the background briefings, given to members of Congress, included Elizondo's 'AATIP'?? (Which would also imply that he's not briefed any of them.)

Gallagher was on the ball with the Wilson docs and Malmstrom, but even he was seemingly oblivious to Elizondo's existence and his 5 year internal study on the subject, despite world-wide coverage. Does that add up?

The most important accumulation of evidence on planet Earth - if it ever existed.

I can understand the reasons for a little manipulation of the NY Times, by Mellon & Elizondo, in order to grab the necessary headlines for their agenda, but there are consequences, like Congress having to start from scratch.

Expand full comment

I can't even count how many questions I want to ask. But we're (hopefully) just getting started. Having followed this stuff for 40 years, I now have the patience of a saint, even though I know I'll be dead in due course.

Expand full comment

You're a better man than I. May you outlive the secrecy, unless the secret is horrific ;)

Expand full comment

I'm a little amazed that Wilson returned your call, Billy. That seems more surprising than anything said at the hearing.

I have a different take on some of the cases mentioned and don't think that the evidence is cut and dried, but I do consider psi to be real and some UFO cases to be examples of non-human tech.

The biggest difficulty seems to be in confirming the 'truth' of claims.

For example, Elizondo was associated with AAWSAP (nickname AATIP), but whether he engaged in any investigations that were documented is uncertain (with emails deleted and reports allegedly stove-piped). It's possible that his assertions are derived from Navy investigations and AAWSAP conclusions including the Nimitz report.

Eric Davis was witness to some of the more bizarre elements at Skinwalker, and is the alleged author the transcript of the conversation with Wilson, the latter who still denies the event ever took place. (Yet we have the late Edgar Mitchell's statements that appear to support the Davis position.)

Everyone can't be telling the objective truth, but is it simply the truth as they perceive it, or recall it?

We have very good multi-witness testimony regarding a subset of UFO incidents that appear to be non-human tech. Could these turn out to be induced misperceptions by a bizarre phenomenon that is apparently directing us to consider that alien life is visiting Earth, or are they the natural result of alien life visiting Earth?

Skinwalker research concluded that a hitchhiker effect exists, a phenomenon that interacts with humans and spreads similar to a contagion. So we're not just talking about localised electrical or magnetic fields zapping temporal lobes, but something more insidious. But is it even related to UFO sightings of non-human tech, or perhaps even just a subset?

How do we know who to believe or trust as a source if we have to consider the possibility that an individual's perceptions can be manipulated and misled to such a fine degree? Are some of the player's infected or perhaps tampered with (assuming there's an aspect of intelligence behind it)?

What are the odds that the entire records of a genuine attempt to research military encounters with UFOs would completely vanish through the actions of Garry Reid (when UAPTF records remain intact)?

What are the odds that Coulthart's contact, Eric Davis and Kit Green's comments relating to secret UFO programs are all false?

What are the odds that one or more individuals directly linked to UFO or Psi research have been subject to altered perceptions with unknown long term effects?

The issues we face aren't just bureaucratic incompetence, just secrecy or just the ridicule factor; there's a degree of interference at the human level (including tales of MiB) helping to muddy the water and it's almost impossible to be certain of anything. Only complete transparency will fully clarify the situation. But Congress isn't up to speed yet, and probably never will be.

Expand full comment

Hi Freeman69, your points remind me about what it means to really know something and Richard Feynman spoke of this re science. He said roughly that he knows what it means to *know* something, how easy it is to fool yourself and how many checks you have to do to be certain you've got it right.

You mention Skinwalker Ranch research and I've managed to dip into some of the latest series 3 clips. What can we glean from this? Dr. Travis Taylor is constantly saying (after 3 years!) "I just don't know!" or (his famous) "It makes no sense!" This is a true scientist (a la the Feynman point above) and I personally think this guy is someone that any true science-minded person (you don't need to actually be a scientist - an honest forensic barrister would do or just an open person!) investigating UAPs should listen to very carefully.

He made a very important point in a reply to George Knapp in a very recent interview where he said science committees and the Senate Armed Service Committee ... "they need to hear from real scientists like myself that these phenomena are real, are being measured and they are *there*. And in my mind there's a potential for a disruptive technology to be created and a National Security incident to occur." And this from a scientist who often says "I just don't know!"

There are things we really *know* (again a la Feynman) at this place, real measurements with equipment.

1. Taylor was personally irradiated by ionising radiation while others nearby were not.

2. There's an EM radiation often picked up on Eric Bard's systems at multiple frequencies. Taylor says this is impossible to replicate or produce normally.

3. There's a region above the Ranch that, when focused on by some equipment, the equipment fails.

4. A laser gets bent and split in this region (recent experiment).

5. There's "anticipation" by whatever's there where a potential experiment being carried out gets nixed just before starting. The term "precognitive sentient phenomena" was given by John Alexander during the Bigelow days. An anticipatory phenomenon.

5. UFOs are constantly seen, often in response to experiments carried out at the time.

6. I think, tentatively, the hitchhiker effect is real, with real entities being seen by families of visitors and the visitors.

7 ... obviously more.

You mention Dr. Eric Davis. I personally think he is one of those like Taylor, spoke of astonishing events at SWR and I also read he's someone who "cannot lie" when asked directly of something. Also Eric Bard of the SWR team who is a true observational experimental scientist who generally only comments on what is measured I've noticed.

Given all this, what to conclude? Something(s) intelligent are there, it often resists probing and reacts to such (Taylor said this in the interview with Knapp, something he couldn't believe he would hear himself say, that the Ranch "reacts"). I think even Feynman would still be with us here. This much we *know*, incredibly.

The thing is, is this a *general* effect, worldwide, with UAPs? How long ago was this recognised and a clamp-down initiated? After Project Sign? After Roswell? Surely before Blue Book. What about Taylor's point about a "disruptive technology"? Nobody wants that in the wrong hands. Maybe this all was known of very early on, perhaps even the late 1940's when UFO sightings were being seriously studied by the USAF and we just had computers, no spacecraft and we were struggling out of WW2 to create new industrialised societies.

Which is why Avi Loeb's Galileo project will be interesting and surely find something we can really say we *know* but probably not understand.

Expand full comment

It's usually quite obvious when individuals simply want to increase their own understanding and awareness of the world, something that is difficult to find fault with. In Nickerson's 'Ariel Phenomenon' I think it was the dean of the university that said Dr Mack had the right to be wrong. In other words, we have the right to investigate and theorise (perhaps even a duty to do so).

Perhaps the only truth to 'knowing' is that we continue to learn enough to be able to learn more about our environment (painfully slowly). Our understanding of reality keeps evolving.

That being said, I'd just be happy to have irrefutable evidence that aliens really are here. It's an issue that's way past its discovery date.

Expand full comment

For me the evidence came at least 25 years ago and pre-internet just from lots of doses of being-honest-with-myself reading. Esp. pilot cases. Then the internet added more. Been pretty weird living with it as few wanted to talk about it. Mack's first book was seismic for me because ordinary people were describing extraordinary encounters (as in Ariel) as it could have been me - until I too had an experience I couldn't honestly deny. Yes, "knowing" can be slow, but there are also fast jumps in this process, jumps which rock paradigms.

I'm British and the UK are going barmy about the Queen and her "reign" at the moment. The contrast with what we speak of couldn't be more ridiculous.

Expand full comment

I'm a Brit too and pretty much started with Tim Good's books. I've experienced a very few (apparent but minor) psi-related incidents but no intriguing UFO sightings. There is a divide between experiencing a relatively complex and unusual situation (knowing what occurred as well as anyone could) and having the evidence to support it.

(Add in the fallibility of memory and perception, and also the speculated effects of a multiverse, and one is left wondering what 'real' actually means to anyone other than oneself. Everyone is on their own journey.)

Expand full comment

"where the F is the Air Force?"

They're busy with leprechauns.

Expand full comment

When queried about the 1967 nuke-missile shutdown by UFOs at Malmstrom AFB, Moultrie tossed the hot potato to Bray, who tried to swat it back: “That data is not within the holdings of the UAP Task Force.”

Immediately after the hearing Robert Salas insisted to various news outlets that he reported the event at the time, has spoken about it repeatedly, and reported it to the government's UFO task force in 2021

"The response I got was: 'We already know your story so unless you've got something new, we don't need to hear what you've got to say, " Salas said.

Where's the USAF?

Holding their secrets tighter than one's sphincter on a long trip between rest stops.

They might be paranoid that one tiny breach of the secrecy bulwark will cascade to an eventual collapse of the whole damn facade. Then there will be hell to pay.


Expand full comment

If your job is to maintain defensive sovereignty over our skies, how do you admit to your constituents, taxpayers, Congress, that you've failed? How *can* you admit that?

Expand full comment

Yes, that would also be my estimate of the Air Force's concern up to a certain pay grade. But let's go higher. I liked commenter Alan's remark that "some very few knew extraterrestrial as *real*" I don't mean to seem too Fox Mulder here, but in my view that "very few" is an international group with a firm grip of the ultimate truth wagon's reins.

Expand full comment

I would just like to second that question, where the F is the Air Force?

Expand full comment


Expand full comment