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."
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.
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.)
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.
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."
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.
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.)
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan is the spookiest spook of them all.