• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

US DoD AATIP program 2009-2012 - In search of UFO/UFP

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
... And if you look at an excerpt of Hill's book, which I only became aware of through this thread, at http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf, you will see that this is exactly what he did - on page 12 it shows for example a taxonomy of a variety of observed shapes. Insisting to treat every single sighting as an isolated incident risks missing potential underlying commonalities, while comparing notes and looking at the bigger picture may well yield significant insights. I'd like to add that although a Concorde looks nothing like a PZL M-15 and exhibits very different performance parameters, both are crewed jet propelled aircraft that rely on aerodynamic lift - looks can be deceiving...
I cannot take that book seriously because the forward quote invalidates everything afterwards:
Hill knew that UFO technology so far exceeded the capability of terrestrial technology that UFOs could not have been made by humans
And I counter with this, the CIA has said "it was us" in regards to the UFO craze of the 50's and 60's that spawned project bluebook. The phrase "history repeats itself" comes to mind.
As I said, I haven't read the book myself, but the methodology that was apparently employed makes eminent sense to me. Whether that method was applied rigorously and consistently, and whether any conclusions drawn therefrom are therefore valid or not, are different questions, but they do not invalidate the fundamental scientific approach of comparatively looking at data from a broad range of sources. I have no preconceived notions about the UFO phenomenon, but I'm a big fan of following where the data may lead us, so the more data the better, and willfully putting on blinders and pretending like there are no possible connections between any cases whatsoever would look an awful lot like prejudice to me. I'd also like to point out that the CIA story, even if completely true (and when has the CIA ever lied about anything at all?), still would only explain about half of the sightings in a fairly narrow time period in the United States (as opposed to the sensationalist claim of 'all' made in the headline), and that would still leave an awful lot of occurrences since then around the whole world that aren't covered by that 'explanation'.

Martin
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
... And if you look at an excerpt of Hill's book, which I only became aware of through this thread, at http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf, you will see that this is exactly what he did - on page 12 it shows for example a taxonomy of a variety of observed shapes. Insisting to treat every single sighting as an isolated incident risks missing potential underlying commonalities, while comparing notes and looking at the bigger picture may well yield significant insights. I'd like to add that although a Concorde looks nothing like a PZL M-15 and exhibits very different performance parameters, both are crewed jet propelled aircraft that rely on aerodynamic lift - looks can be deceiving...
I cannot take that book seriously because the forward quote invalidates everything afterwards:
Hill knew that UFO technology so far exceeded the capability of terrestrial technology that UFOs could not have been made by humans
And I counter with this, the CIA has said "it was us" in regards to the UFO craze of the 50's and 60's that spawned project bluebook. The phrase "history repeats itself" comes to mind.
As I said, I haven't read the book myself, but the methodology that was apparently employed makes eminent sense to me. Whether that method was applied rigorously and consistently, and whether any conclusions drawn therefrom are therefore valid or not, are different questions, but they do not invalidate the fundamental scientific approach of comparatively looking at data from a broad range of sources. I have no preconceived notions about the UFO phenomenon, but I'm a big fan of following where the data may lead us, so the more data the better, and willfully putting on blinders and pretending like there are no possible connections between any cases whatsoever would look an awful lot like prejudice to me. I'd also like to point out that the CIA story, even if completely true (and when has the CIA ever lied about anything at all?), still would only explain about half of the sightings in a fairly narrow time period in the United States (as opposed to the sensationalist claim of 'all' made in the headline), and that would still leave an awful lot of occurrences since then around the whole world that aren't covered by that 'explanation'.

Martin
The CIA isn't being sensationalist. They are dropping a very large hint.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
... And if you look at an excerpt of Hill's book, which I only became aware of through this thread, at http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf, you will see that this is exactly what he did - on page 12 it shows for example a taxonomy of a variety of observed shapes. Insisting to treat every single sighting as an isolated incident risks missing potential underlying commonalities, while comparing notes and looking at the bigger picture may well yield significant insights. I'd like to add that although a Concorde looks nothing like a PZL M-15 and exhibits very different performance parameters, both are crewed jet propelled aircraft that rely on aerodynamic lift - looks can be deceiving...
I cannot take that book seriously because the forward quote invalidates everything afterwards:
Hill knew that UFO technology so far exceeded the capability of terrestrial technology that UFOs could not have been made by humans
And I counter with this, the CIA has said "it was us" in regards to the UFO craze of the 50's and 60's that spawned project bluebook. The phrase "history repeats itself" comes to mind.
As I said, I haven't read the book myself, but the methodology that was apparently employed makes eminent sense to me. Whether that method was applied rigorously and consistently, and whether any conclusions drawn therefrom are therefore valid or not, are different questions, but they do not invalidate the fundamental scientific approach of comparatively looking at data from a broad range of sources. I have no preconceived notions about the UFO phenomenon, but I'm a big fan of following where the data may lead us, so the more data the better, and willfully putting on blinders and pretending like there are no possible connections between any cases whatsoever would look an awful lot like prejudice to me. I'd also like to point out that the CIA story, even if completely true (and when has the CIA ever lied about anything at all?), still would only explain about half of the sightings in a fairly narrow time period in the United States (as opposed to the sensationalist claim of 'all' made in the headline), and that would still leave an awful lot of occurrences since then around the whole world that aren't covered by that 'explanation'.

Martin
The CIA isn't being sensationalist. They are dropping a very large hint.
For us dummies in the cheap seats, what's the "hint"? ???
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
... And if you look at an excerpt of Hill's book, which I only became aware of through this thread, at http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf, you will see that this is exactly what he did - on page 12 it shows for example a taxonomy of a variety of observed shapes. Insisting to treat every single sighting as an isolated incident risks missing potential underlying commonalities, while comparing notes and looking at the bigger picture may well yield significant insights. I'd like to add that although a Concorde looks nothing like a PZL M-15 and exhibits very different performance parameters, both are crewed jet propelled aircraft that rely on aerodynamic lift - looks can be deceiving...
I cannot take that book seriously because the forward quote invalidates everything afterwards:
Hill knew that UFO technology so far exceeded the capability of terrestrial technology that UFOs could not have been made by humans
And I counter with this, the CIA has said "it was us" in regards to the UFO craze of the 50's and 60's that spawned project bluebook. The phrase "history repeats itself" comes to mind.
As I said, I haven't read the book myself, but the methodology that was apparently employed makes eminent sense to me. Whether that method was applied rigorously and consistently, and whether any conclusions drawn therefrom are therefore valid or not, are different questions, but they do not invalidate the fundamental scientific approach of comparatively looking at data from a broad range of sources. I have no preconceived notions about the UFO phenomenon, but I'm a big fan of following where the data may lead us, so the more data the better, and willfully putting on blinders and pretending like there are no possible connections between any cases whatsoever would look an awful lot like prejudice to me. I'd also like to point out that the CIA story, even if completely true (and when has the CIA ever lied about anything at all?), still would only explain about half of the sightings in a fairly narrow time period in the United States (as opposed to the sensationalist claim of 'all' made in the headline), and that would still leave an awful lot of occurrences since then around the whole world that aren't covered by that 'explanation'.

Martin
The CIA isn't being sensationalist. They are dropping a very large hint.
The 'sensationalist" referred to the bold claim of 'all' in the headline created by Fox News, which is in clear contradiction to the contents of the actual article.
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
For us dummies in the cheap seats, what's the "hint"? ???
That "It was us" applies just as much today as it ever did.
So you think they still account (according to their own previous statement) for about half of all sightings in the USA? What about all the rest? Or do you think they only take partial credit? I can't see what sense such an approach would make.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
martinbayer said:
I can't see what sense such an approach would make.
It was brilliantly executed. You can see from the account above by a sailor on the carrier that it was common knowledge that aviators had a run in with the Tic tac. Then the Russians had the same sort of run in with the tic tac. A perfect opportunity to get a bunch of fantastic ELINT on Russian platforms in close quarters, no international incident necessary. The Russians said it was a UFO because the US Navy said it was a UFO. Thats some spycraft level social engineering right there.
 

kcran567

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Aug 15, 2009
Messages
664
Reaction score
12
Maybe the Navy/CIA wanted this story out to get a boatload of $$$ to "counter the threat" from advanced (new) Russian or Chinese or ??? advanced technology. The Navy is obviously in control of the story to spin it any way they want to (at a future date). Its a new attempt to get more money to counter a threat than no body seems to really care about. The general public could seem care less at this point. Maybe the next video they release will be a little bit "scarier" perhaps?


sublight is back said:
First off, Matt, sorry to sound snarky. I'm just of the opinion that throwing everything in the UFO bucket seems counterproductive. I brought up the "gigantic thing" flying with F-16's over Stephenville/Dublin/Brownwood MOA in 2007, because I think its just as interesting and relevant but all the data surrounding that incident does not correlate to the Navy incident except for the fact that the military was involved in both incidents.

Four years ago a crewman on the carrier told that same story to the UFO crowd on Reddit. It REALLY seems like the Navy wanted this story to get out, one way or the other:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1qyu5i/my_ufo_encounterexposure_while_on_board_an/


I decided to create an account to tell this story of an experience I had while on board an aircraft carrier far from the coast of California in the Pacific.
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
135
martinbayer said:
I'm admittedly only an aerospace engineer, not a scientist, but in my best understanding, within the scientific method there is certainly value in starting out by collecting data across a wide range of observations and then sorting and categorizing them according to different criteria, patterns and common characteristics.
This is (apparently) what Bigelow has been doing and was the point of this program. Bigelow created a company (BAAS) separate from his TransHAB company. This company is the data collection center for FAA, DoD, and private sector UFO reports. When they get reports that seem to have some merit they send trained investigators to collect data - and BAAS (as far as I can tell) operates at a loss.

This seems to have been started because Bigelow was frustrated that the existing UFO organizations were not taking a rigorous approach.
 

Mat Parry

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
417
Reaction score
7
We seem to have slipped back into speculating about the motivations of those (if any) in control of the phenomena.

If we run with the proposed conspiracy theory being espoused by some here, how are several radar systems, electro optical sensors and pilots eyes being deceived simultaneously?

  • Radar systems = Spoofing (in a similar fashion to the palladium program / A12 oxcart over Cuba in 1962
  • EO sensors = faked tapes?
  • pilots = liars?

Or something more sophisticated? Such as somehow remotely generating optical and radar signatures (remote generation of plasmas for example)

https://youtu.be/jCaruUtiPHo

https://coi.tothestarsacademy.com/2004-uss-nimitz-pilot-interview/
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
quellish said:
martinbayer said:
I'm admittedly only an aerospace engineer, not a scientist, but in my best understanding, within the scientific method there is certainly value in starting out by collecting data across a wide range of observations and then sorting and categorizing them according to different criteria, patterns and common characteristics.
This is (apparently) what Bigelow has been doing and was the point of this program. Bigelow created a company (BAAS) separate from his TransHAB company. This company is the data collection center for FAA, DoD, and private sector UFO reports. When they get reports that seem to have some merit they send trained investigators to collect data - and BAAS (as far as I can tell) operates at a loss.

This seems to have been started because Bigelow was frustrated that the existing UFO organizations were not taking a rigorous approach.
Thanks for the pointer, quellish - I applaud Bigelow for that.

Martin
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
I can't see what sense such an approach would make.
It was brilliantly executed. You can see from the account above by a sailor on the carrier that it was common knowledge that aviators had a run in with the Tic tac. Then the Russians had the same sort of run in with the tic tac. A perfect opportunity to get a bunch of fantastic ELINT on Russian platforms in close quarters, no international incident necessary. The Russians said it was a UFO because the US Navy said it was a UFO. Thats some spycraft level social engineering right there.
You really seem to be missing the point here again, repeatedly. Once more, you are apparently narrowly focusing on one or more specific incidents without looking at the totality of worldwide occurrences. Your conjecture might perhaps be correct for a very small number of encounters, but that ignores the majority of all reported cases around the globe. Even the CIA apparently doesn't claim that all UFOs are their doing - how do you explain the discrepancy? Does the CIA lie? If so, why should we believe their initial claim in the first place?

Martin
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
I can't see what sense such an approach would make.
It was brilliantly executed. You can see from the account above by a sailor on the carrier that it was common knowledge that aviators had a run in with the Tic tac. Then the Russians had the same sort of run in with the tic tac. A perfect opportunity to get a bunch of fantastic ELINT on Russian platforms in close quarters, no international incident necessary. The Russians said it was a UFO because the US Navy said it was a UFO. Thats some spycraft level social engineering right there.
You really seem to be missing the point here again, repeatedly. Once more, you are apparently narrowly focusing on one or more specific incidents without looking at the totality of worldwide occurrences. Your conjecture might perhaps be correct for a very small number of encounters, but that ignores the majority of all reported cases around the globe. Even the CIA doesn't claim all UFOs aren't their doing - how do you explain the discrepancy? Does the CIA lie? If so, why should we believe their initial claim in the first place?

Martin
What was your technical specialty again? You're completely fixated on lumping together the treasure with the trash. Do you have any idea how many daily reports of UFO's there are around the globe? The number is right up there with ghost and bigfoot sightings. Every lens flare is a UFO. Every navigation light is a UFO. Go look at the hundreds of UFO videos uploaded on youtube every day. What does statistical analysis tell you the likelihood of any of those being legitimate is? The saddest thing about all this is that the belief in the urban UFO legend runs so deep that people cant accept that our little blue dot is so unfathomably unimportant and so incredibly far away from anything, that intelligent life may not happen by our neck of the galaxy for millions of years, if ever.
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
I can't see what sense such an approach would make.
It was brilliantly executed. You can see from the account above by a sailor on the carrier that it was common knowledge that aviators had a run in with the Tic tac. Then the Russians had the same sort of run in with the tic tac. A perfect opportunity to get a bunch of fantastic ELINT on Russian platforms in close quarters, no international incident necessary. The Russians said it was a UFO because the US Navy said it was a UFO. Thats some spycraft level social engineering right there.
You really seem to be missing the point here again, repeatedly. Once more, you are apparently narrowly focusing on one or more specific incidents without looking at the totality of worldwide occurrences. Your conjecture might perhaps be correct for a very small number of encounters, but that ignores the majority of all reported cases around the globe. Even the CIA doesn't claim all UFOs aren't their doing - how do you explain the discrepancy? Does the CIA lie? If so, why should we believe their initial claim in the first place?

Martin
What was your technical specialty again? You're completely fixated on lumping together the treasure with the trash. Do you have any idea how many daily reports of UFO's there are around the globe? The number is right up there with ghost and bigfoot sightings. Every lens flare is a UFO. Every navigation light is a UFO. Go look at the hundreds of UFO videos uploaded on youtube every day. What does statistical analysis tell you the likelihood of any of those being legitimate is? The saddest thing about all this is that the belief in the urban UFO legend runs so deep that people cant accept that our little blue dot is so unfathomably unimportant and so incredibly far away from anything, that intelligent life may not happen by our neck of the galaxy for millions of years, if ever.
Why, thanks for asking - my specialty and true passion is space systems engineering, although lately I dabble in homeland security liability risk management, see https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer/ - what's yours, if I may ask? I'll gladly send you a full list of my publications if you show me yours. I'm all for separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to unusual aerial phenomena, so I'm actually diametrically opposed to lumping "the treasure with the trash" as you so quaintly put it. I told you before that I have an open mind when it comes to unconventional flying objects, but perhaps due to a sadly nowadays typical short attention span you apparently already forgot - oh well. It's pretty funny though that after insisting on treating every single observation of such a phenomenon as a single isolated case merely based on its own merits all of a sudden you switch to applying 'statistical analysis' - would you care to elaborate on that dichotomy? Statistics also tell you that you'll most likely never win the lottery, yet it happens all the time around the world :eek:. Note also that I have explicitly stated before that I have an open mind with respect to UFOs and never claimed any alien provenience, so please enjoy that red herring that you tried to cram down my throat for your own Saturday breakfast :).

Martin
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
sublight is back said:
martinbayer said:
I can't see what sense such an approach would make.
It was brilliantly executed. You can see from the account above by a sailor on the carrier that it was common knowledge that aviators had a run in with the Tic tac. Then the Russians had the same sort of run in with the tic tac. A perfect opportunity to get a bunch of fantastic ELINT on Russian platforms in close quarters, no international incident necessary. The Russians said it was a UFO because the US Navy said it was a UFO. Thats some spycraft level social engineering right there.
You really seem to be missing the point here again, repeatedly. Once more, you are apparently narrowly focusing on one or more specific incidents without looking at the totality of worldwide occurrences. Your conjecture might perhaps be correct for a very small number of encounters, but that ignores the majority of all reported cases around the globe. Even the CIA doesn't claim all UFOs aren't their doing - how do you explain the discrepancy? Does the CIA lie? If so, why should we believe their initial claim in the first place?

Martin
What was your technical specialty again? You're completely fixated on lumping together the treasure with the trash. Do you have any idea how many daily reports of UFO's there are around the globe? The number is right up there with ghost and bigfoot sightings. Every lens flare is a UFO. Every navigation light is a UFO. Go look at the hundreds of UFO videos uploaded on youtube every day. What does statistical analysis tell you the likelihood of any of those being legitimate is? The saddest thing about all this is that the belief in the urban UFO legend runs so deep that people cant accept that our little blue dot is so unfathomably unimportant and so incredibly far away from anything, that intelligent life may not happen by our neck of the galaxy for millions of years, if ever.
Why, thanks for asking - my specialty and true passion is space systems engineering, although lately I dabble in homeland security liability risk management, see https://www.linkedin.com/in/martinjbayer/ - what's yours, if I may ask? I'll gladly send you a full list of my publications if you show me yours. I'm all for separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to unusual aerial phenomena, so I'm actually diametrically opposed to lumping "the treasure with the trash" as you so quaintly put it. I told you before that I have an open mind when it comes to unconventional flying objects, but perhaps due to a sadly nowadays typical short attention span you apparently already forgot - oh well. It's pretty funny though that after insisting on treating every single observation of such a phenomenon as a single isolated case merely based on its own merits all of a sudden you switch to applying 'statistical analysis' - would you care to elaborate on that dichotomy? Statistics also tell you that you'll most likely never win the lottery, yet it happens all the time around the world :eek:. Note also that I have explicitly stated before that I have an open mind with respect to UFOs and never claimed any alien provenience, so please enjoy that red herring that you tried to cram down my throat for your own Saturday breakfast :).

Martin
You work for the company whose very technology we may be essentially discussing. But you're totally unbiased, right? :eek:
 

martinbayer

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
696
Reaction score
164
Ok - we're officially in tinfoil hat territory now. I'm out.
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
770
Reaction score
53
martinbayer said:
Ok - we're officially in tinfoil hat territory now. I'm out.
Oh Boeing (phantom works) didn't have an experimental platform designed not to cast shadows on itself (bird of prey) and Boeing doesn't have lots of patents on quantum tunnel based multi spectral emissions? Where ya going? We're just getting started.
 
Top