It’s always better to have laws nobody takes seriously than no laws at all . . . Nothing wrong with Vladimir Putin that a bolt-pistol round to the back of the head and a shallow unmarked grave can’t fix. But unless the Kremlin’s generals rediscover their own patriotism and put this twisted mutt out of his misery before he destroys Russia too, the Ukrainian killfest seems destined to dominate the news cycle until it runs out of targets. But hey, cheer up – we can now officially scratch Russian technology off the UAP suspect list; otherwise, this war would be over.
"Timed to the end of Putin’s speech announcing the operation, the Russians decapitated with precision missiles everything that mattered in terms of the Ukrainian military in just one hour: Air force, navy, airfields, bridges, command and control centers, the whole Turkish Bayraktar drone fleet."
It makes me wonder if the US DoD's return to total cover-up mode relating to what it really knows about all things UFO-UAP is partially driven by that reality.
I've been able to obtain FOIA radar data over the years (with assistance), but it seems that whenever there's official interest in an incident, the data are unavailable for one reason or another. This included the Colorado/Nebraska drones where the FBI was allegedly investigating. A FOIA request for a specific area that included 2 long range radars, resulted in a massive file of data covering 1/4 to 1/3 of the U.S., but minus the two radars of interest. (Plus, the total number of returns fell way short of what one would expect given the total area and time.)
A MUFON investigator requested data that related to an air force exercise with the largest aircraft (C130s?) in a convoy flying across the continent. He received one file for Denver that was cut down to a miniscule area, missing the path of the convoy; one file for Kansas city that contained an enormous amount of data of mostly anomalous returns that appeared to be migrating geese (plus the convoy); one file for another area that was airport surface radar i.e. planes on the tarmac (a massive and virtually unreadable file), plus the names of the last two files had been mysteriously switched causing extra confusion.
Other tricks include providing beacon returns only (sometimes ADS-B), even when primary returns have been requested. Whenever there's an extended delay it invariably means that someone is working out how to withhold the data!
The 84th RADES stopped providing data shortly after Aguadilla (although Aguadilla didn't include the data from that airport's radar) - they are the gold standard (where the FAA is a zip-code lottery at the best of times). I appealed years ago, and the appeal was lost, then found again with the help of OGIS, but ultimately the air force said that I couldn't appeal the withholding of RADES data (even though it represented a unique data set because only RADES could provide estimated altitudes for primary returns where 3D radars were located). They also said the FAA owned the data, but as far as I'm aware the FAA and air force have shared the cost of the long & short range radar network for decades. They both have data feeds from all of the radars.
On the plus side, the US is the only nation that allows FOIA access to radar data; it's just a pity that it doesn't honour the obligation and its officialdom is more paranoid than us researchers.
(Other common FAA formats include(d) Stars and CDR Editor listings.)
If people think that obtaining empirical evidence of UAP/UFOs is 'easy' then they need to think again. (And this includes cases like Stephenville, Aguadilla and the (English) Channel Islands 2007, where the data sets are both large and limited, as well as complex and ultimately subject to different interpretations.)
In other words, it's an uphill battle and we're only just beginning. We still have a long way to go before radar data conclusively provide supporting evidence of a UAP in conjunction with a visual sighting.
Back to square one: keep the Phenomenon out of public awareness and inquisitiveness.
Robertson Panel 4.0
It's interesting that Russia employed hypersonic missiles in the Ukraine immediately.
https://thecradle.co/Article/columns/7266
"Timed to the end of Putin’s speech announcing the operation, the Russians decapitated with precision missiles everything that mattered in terms of the Ukrainian military in just one hour: Air force, navy, airfields, bridges, command and control centers, the whole Turkish Bayraktar drone fleet."
It makes me wonder if the US DoD's return to total cover-up mode relating to what it really knows about all things UFO-UAP is partially driven by that reality.
I've been able to obtain FOIA radar data over the years (with assistance), but it seems that whenever there's official interest in an incident, the data are unavailable for one reason or another. This included the Colorado/Nebraska drones where the FBI was allegedly investigating. A FOIA request for a specific area that included 2 long range radars, resulted in a massive file of data covering 1/4 to 1/3 of the U.S., but minus the two radars of interest. (Plus, the total number of returns fell way short of what one would expect given the total area and time.)
A MUFON investigator requested data that related to an air force exercise with the largest aircraft (C130s?) in a convoy flying across the continent. He received one file for Denver that was cut down to a miniscule area, missing the path of the convoy; one file for Kansas city that contained an enormous amount of data of mostly anomalous returns that appeared to be migrating geese (plus the convoy); one file for another area that was airport surface radar i.e. planes on the tarmac (a massive and virtually unreadable file), plus the names of the last two files had been mysteriously switched causing extra confusion.
Other tricks include providing beacon returns only (sometimes ADS-B), even when primary returns have been requested. Whenever there's an extended delay it invariably means that someone is working out how to withhold the data!
The 84th RADES stopped providing data shortly after Aguadilla (although Aguadilla didn't include the data from that airport's radar) - they are the gold standard (where the FAA is a zip-code lottery at the best of times). I appealed years ago, and the appeal was lost, then found again with the help of OGIS, but ultimately the air force said that I couldn't appeal the withholding of RADES data (even though it represented a unique data set because only RADES could provide estimated altitudes for primary returns where 3D radars were located). They also said the FAA owned the data, but as far as I'm aware the FAA and air force have shared the cost of the long & short range radar network for decades. They both have data feeds from all of the radars.
On the plus side, the US is the only nation that allows FOIA access to radar data; it's just a pity that it doesn't honour the obligation and its officialdom is more paranoid than us researchers.
(Other common FAA formats include(d) Stars and CDR Editor listings.)
If people think that obtaining empirical evidence of UAP/UFOs is 'easy' then they need to think again. (And this includes cases like Stephenville, Aguadilla and the (English) Channel Islands 2007, where the data sets are both large and limited, as well as complex and ultimately subject to different interpretations.)
In other words, it's an uphill battle and we're only just beginning. We still have a long way to go before radar data conclusively provide supporting evidence of a UAP in conjunction with a visual sighting.
Terrific. In every sense of the word.
It's now the Mastodon in the room. A very small room.