SCU urges the intel community to get help and share UFO data
Just reading a bit now from TheUFOJoe on twitter Billy who just refd. your article. That SCU conf. must have been a great meet! Only just recently clicked for me Travis Taylor and Jay Stratton (both now at the same company) worked together at the UAP Task Force and Travis is at Skinwalker. And Stratton went to Skinwalker too. Fascinating interviews with Travis by George Knapp if you heard.
Just listened to Eric Weinstein with Mick West on Curt's TOE. Good God, West is tricky as hell and Eric was utterly serious and deep and clearly has been effected by this subject. He realizes he's been lied to, I believe he means by "government". One odd take away for me. West isn't effected and intelligent enough to know it's all real. I can only conclude disinformation agent either acting alone or with others. And doesn't realise the kind of huge scientific brain he's been talking to. Eric was clearly disturbed by West in places. I was. It was strange and I got the impression West was using his better knowledge of the subject to mess a bit with Eric. And called out Ryan Graves in front of Eric for not talking to him FFS, what a surprise. The guy get's in people's head. Needs a NOTAMS.
I read your https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ufo-science-research-uap-congress-pentagon?fbclid=IwAR1sUj8hj2K09ksXs4EQTLWJVCkjrahnsHxE7i4n018r6tH9P2JtddUgUMA What surprises me about so-called UFO experts is their utter bias and incompetence, including the one you interviewed. Here is an example: watched https://www.uap.guide/path/the-nimitz-encounters Remarkably not a single mention that the event occurred at the time of extreme geomagnetic storms. According to https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/auroral-activity/top-50-geomagnetic-storms.html , 7 of the 10 most powerful geomag storms occurred in 2003/10/29 - 2004/11/10 If you want to solve a mystery, you need to know all the facts, otherwise is utterly misleading. Not a single story about the Nimitz event mentions that. Why? Has anyone told you that? Have you even been aware of that? There is more than enough data about UAP in the public domain, but the "experts" are too blind to see it.
Thank you Billy for a very well written article that summarized the overall SCU conference. As always, it was great seeing you in person again!
"The hyper-classification and compartmentalization of UFO evidence by the intelligence community is killing creativity and innovation."
Billy, this really got me a memory from the Oppenheimer (1980) mini-series (you can get all online). Oppenheimer is meeting with General Groves (Army head of the Manhattan Project) for the second time on a train (Groves is worried about scientists talking too much to each other) and Oppie says, "If you cut everybody off from each other you've got security certainly, but, you see, scientific research is basically a collaborative art especially on a project like this. One person may come up with a part of the answer but he won't be able to get there by himself. But another person may have another part of the answer and then a couple of other people will add a little bit more and that's the way it works. But if you have everybody shut off in little departments and separate centres, nobody talking to anybody else..."
The solution suggested by Oppie was a central lab., scientists shut off together at Los Alamos and it worked. But here the cat was in the bag and for good reason. We were at war and it wasn't clear how quickly adversaries could parallel develop (it was later learned the Germans had the same level of knowledge as a graduate student in nuclear physics).
With UAPs the cat is out surely so an obvious solution would be for the National Academy of Sciences to organise open conferences (the independent SCU 22 one worked) in experiment and theory based on the surely 100% stunning data that will be gained over the next year or two. By the by, people like Deep Prasad and his team/company involved in materials aspects could mingle freely with conference attendees.
I also remember in the series Oppie telling Groves on a first meeting at Berkeley that there are no experts in the atomic bomb field because it was all so new. Same with UAPs ... maybe. Surely something is known unofficially. But something now has to give! And soon. Can we at least pretend it's a new field? (politely we won't talk about the USAF). Because surely data will be coming in thick and fast from the new detectors being built at Harvard (I sense a race with NASA and possibly NASA getting shafted - but credit to Bill Nelson) and whatever NASA are up to and the Academy *has* to respond. David Spergel (leading the NASA effort) said "We have to approach all these questions with a sense of humility." I thought an amazing comment from an astrophysicist because you are humble because of something bigger than *yourself*, not from some new galaxy that's been discovered.
And I think the AIAA and Ryan Graves will be key in that engineers really want to get their teeth in - i.e. get something to fly.
Very helpful to have some context for Alexander's comment!
Stratton was a surprise bonus - hearing his side of things. (I wonder how tightly he's tied in to the TTSA crowd, if at all?)
I think it was Puthoff, that described starting a UFO (or possibly Psi) project by building a library of reference materials. Of course, that means having to read in order to build an understanding of the current state of affairs... but wasn't that the point of one of Rockefeller's initiatives, to produce a briefing document?
(One would think that Elizondo's 5 year study confirming the '5 observables' would have been of incredible importance in that respect... as a primer for members of Congress.)
A worldwide database that scientific investigators could draw from and contribute to is so logical it's farcical that one doesn't yet exist.
Wasted time and research effort could potentially be avoided by having access to something of that breadth.
Next to over classification, I see another impediment: an unspoken but clearly evident atmosphere of competition rather than cooperation.