I actually had my main job as helping to run, content select and organise specific data for an international science database so we came across, as part of my nuclear physics speciality, massive conferences on nuclear safeguards. It's a science in itself. To see Robert's study listed under esp. SAFEGUARDS AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION certainly sprang new meaning to mind. UFOs are subject indexed at the IAEA!
Billy, thought this interesting. Robert Hastings UFOs and Nukes is listed on the IAEA website under a heading NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION.
Are we to believe that nothing was actually found of the three objects targeted over Alaska, the Yukon, and Lake Huron? (Slight correction: as far as I know, the Canadians have yet to announce any findings, or no finding)
Certainly these objects were tracked on their way down, so their impact points would be recorded with some accuracy (a general said that the errant sidewinder fired over Lake Huron was tracked down to the water). About the Lake Huron object, it is powerfully curious that it is reported to have slowly descended to the water after being blown up with a missile (CNN said that was in a Pentagon memo about the incidents).
And above all, if these 3 objects were nothing of concern, why can't we see the gun camera images and other records?
All -- a little perspective just in from Lue Elizondo about NSC resources v. AARO:
"AARO is only Defense and Intel related. Meaning, they only have influence in those arenas. The NSC has much broader authorities and can include the input from any organization within the Executive Department...such as DOE, NOAA, DHS, FAA, etc. I think the purpose here is to ensure the President is informed without having to go through several layers of bureaucracy to get the info he needs/wants."
Right - the issue is a high visibility one involving national security and a foreign nation, so it becomes a high priority for the executive branch; answers become necessary. Meanwhile the study of UAP in general is under-resourced and not being fed pertinent information from relevant agencies.
It looks like the (FOIA related) confusion over the possible existence of a UAP Joint Intelligence Agency Task Force (JIATF) was due to the efforts of Jay Stratton in creating his more informal UAPTF by liaising with and briefing as many agencies as possible (as per his interview with Corbell and Knapp). It's now quite obvious that the U.S. Government (including the military) could provide the necessary resources/info for AARO, if it really wanted to.
Btw, there's nothing the FAA has that the Air Force doesn't - they share the same nationwide network of ATC radars (long and short range) plus the military has additional radar assets.
One UAP office that gets all the data is far preferable to multiple UAP offices that get some of the data. I hope Gillibrand and Rubio prevail with their vision.
Hi Bryce, I'm thinking because this has now become much more *publicly* political (Rubio also said NORAD had never shot down anything in 65 years), those at the very top not only now have to shift gears in terms of investigation but to be seen to be doing so as well. And since NDAA 2023 is now enshrined in law it has now, kind of, become their master?
Kinda weird, huh? It's like, I could never figure out why we needed Space Force when we already had U.S. Space Command up and running since 1985. Another layer of bureaucracy? Really?
The UFO/UAP issue has always been complex, but reading through the article made me consider that there's a pocket-universe of complexity spinning around these Chinese balloons. One minute we're celebrating the fact that some form of military UAP data collection is occurring, then suddenly the focus is on a national security issue and the data collection is apparently being routed elsewhere (presumably where the resources are because answers have suddenly become necessary).
The circumstances also act to (likely) ensure that no data are made public because of the current national security issue of the balloons.
What impact will the current situation have on the future of AARO? Will it introduce a bias away from exceptional cases (of high strangeness) towards identifiably foreign spy technology (assuming that AARO does/did focus on the weird stuff to begin with.
I just twigged something - is the reason the '5 observables' were promoted (albeit without supporting cases) because they are acceptable (yet exceptional) criteria to ask someone to report observations of? One can't ask pilots to report 'any other werd sh**', whereas reporting apparent manoeuvres beyond today's technology would be acceptable to the military hierarchy.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see where these balloons take us. (Although they've not been propitious for ufology so far.)
Interesting how the introduction of a single real-world variable can change the entire conversation in a flash. I think it goes to the fragility of this secret's support system, especially when Congress begins to realize it's been scammed since before most of its members were born.
Isn't UAP driving this particular story? It's China. It's security posture or lack thereof. UFOs got caught up in that draft and are being pulled along into the spotlight because UAP has been its cover so far. There's easy hay to be made politically with national security, and I don't see lawmakers tripping down a rocky road to try and wedge an opening into the Big Secret.
I actually had my main job as helping to run, content select and organise specific data for an international science database so we came across, as part of my nuclear physics speciality, massive conferences on nuclear safeguards. It's a science in itself. To see Robert's study listed under esp. SAFEGUARDS AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION certainly sprang new meaning to mind. UFOs are subject indexed at the IAEA!
Billy, thought this interesting. Robert Hastings UFOs and Nukes is listed on the IAEA website under a heading NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION.
https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?num=10&orig_q=RN%3a46130842&lang=en-US&login=false&user=External&src=&sort=date:D:L:d1&sortorder=ascending&search-option=Everywhere&q=+inmeta:PrimarySubject%3DNUCLEAR%2520DISARMAMENT%252C%2520SAFEGUARDS%2520AND%2520PHYSICAL%2520PROTECTION&dnavs=inmeta:PrimarySubject%3DNUCLEAR%2520DISARMAMENT%252C%2520SAFEGUARDS%2520AND%2520PHYSICAL%2520PROTECTION
Someone at the IAEA thought important to file away there.
Are we to believe that nothing was actually found of the three objects targeted over Alaska, the Yukon, and Lake Huron? (Slight correction: as far as I know, the Canadians have yet to announce any findings, or no finding)
Certainly these objects were tracked on their way down, so their impact points would be recorded with some accuracy (a general said that the errant sidewinder fired over Lake Huron was tracked down to the water). About the Lake Huron object, it is powerfully curious that it is reported to have slowly descended to the water after being blown up with a missile (CNN said that was in a Pentagon memo about the incidents).
And above all, if these 3 objects were nothing of concern, why can't we see the gun camera images and other records?
The whole matter has been silenced.
Billy, check out Bob Salas twitter feed.
Bob see's through Elizondo's BS.
Ugh...
But he did get a good letter from AARO!
All -- a little perspective just in from Lue Elizondo about NSC resources v. AARO:
"AARO is only Defense and Intel related. Meaning, they only have influence in those arenas. The NSC has much broader authorities and can include the input from any organization within the Executive Department...such as DOE, NOAA, DHS, FAA, etc. I think the purpose here is to ensure the President is informed without having to go through several layers of bureaucracy to get the info he needs/wants."
Sounds good, thanks to Lue for this.
Right - the issue is a high visibility one involving national security and a foreign nation, so it becomes a high priority for the executive branch; answers become necessary. Meanwhile the study of UAP in general is under-resourced and not being fed pertinent information from relevant agencies.
It looks like the (FOIA related) confusion over the possible existence of a UAP Joint Intelligence Agency Task Force (JIATF) was due to the efforts of Jay Stratton in creating his more informal UAPTF by liaising with and briefing as many agencies as possible (as per his interview with Corbell and Knapp). It's now quite obvious that the U.S. Government (including the military) could provide the necessary resources/info for AARO, if it really wanted to.
Btw, there's nothing the FAA has that the Air Force doesn't - they share the same nationwide network of ATC radars (long and short range) plus the military has additional radar assets.
One UAP office that gets all the data is far preferable to multiple UAP offices that get some of the data. I hope Gillibrand and Rubio prevail with their vision.
Hi Bryce, I'm thinking because this has now become much more *publicly* political (Rubio also said NORAD had never shot down anything in 65 years), those at the very top not only now have to shift gears in terms of investigation but to be seen to be doing so as well. And since NDAA 2023 is now enshrined in law it has now, kind of, become their master?
Kinda weird, huh? It's like, I could never figure out why we needed Space Force when we already had U.S. Space Command up and running since 1985. Another layer of bureaucracy? Really?
The UFO/UAP issue has always been complex, but reading through the article made me consider that there's a pocket-universe of complexity spinning around these Chinese balloons. One minute we're celebrating the fact that some form of military UAP data collection is occurring, then suddenly the focus is on a national security issue and the data collection is apparently being routed elsewhere (presumably where the resources are because answers have suddenly become necessary).
The circumstances also act to (likely) ensure that no data are made public because of the current national security issue of the balloons.
What impact will the current situation have on the future of AARO? Will it introduce a bias away from exceptional cases (of high strangeness) towards identifiably foreign spy technology (assuming that AARO does/did focus on the weird stuff to begin with.
I just twigged something - is the reason the '5 observables' were promoted (albeit without supporting cases) because they are acceptable (yet exceptional) criteria to ask someone to report observations of? One can't ask pilots to report 'any other werd sh**', whereas reporting apparent manoeuvres beyond today's technology would be acceptable to the military hierarchy.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see where these balloons take us. (Although they've not been propitious for ufology so far.)
Interesting how the introduction of a single real-world variable can change the entire conversation in a flash. I think it goes to the fragility of this secret's support system, especially when Congress begins to realize it's been scammed since before most of its members were born.
Isn't UAP driving this particular story? It's China. It's security posture or lack thereof. UFOs got caught up in that draft and are being pulled along into the spotlight because UAP has been its cover so far. There's easy hay to be made politically with national security, and I don't see lawmakers tripping down a rocky road to try and wedge an opening into the Big Secret.
Nothing's guaranteed. So let's just call it an adventure.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is the spookiest spook of them all.
Well, in a bar fight, I might've put my money on Bill Casey.