Introduction
The CRADA is between TTSA and The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center. You can read TTSA´s announcement of the CRADA in the news section on its website.
In the first link below, you can read the CRADA in its entirety, thanks to John Greenewald Jr, creator of The Black Vault. The title of the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S.
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/u-s-army-releases-crada-with-to-the-stars-academy-of-arts-science/
The second link below takes you to a good article by Joseph Trevithick for The Drive. The article gives some background and context to the research and development "deal" between TTSA and the U.S. Army.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30481/what-we-know-about-the-army-teaming-up-with-rockstar-tom-delonges-ufo-research-company
My thoughts on the CRADA
Now, to my personal thoughts on some of the explicit parts in the CRADA, and on what may or may not be implied with this cooperation between TTSA and the U.S. Army: "What could it all mean?" I have not further researched the technicalities and legal terms in the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army. Neither have I taken a closer look at what The U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center actually does, what kind of scientists and facilities it has, etc.
With that said, I think everyone interested in the UFO phenomena in general, and the development of the activities of TTSA in particular, can draw some relatively certain conclusions from what is explicitly said in the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army. I also believe we can make some educated guesses about what is "between the lines" in the CRADA. But, of course, we have to be both humble and clear about which ones of our claims fall within the parameters of what the data says and which ones fall on the outside.
In the following, I will do my best to distinguish between "facts" and "speculation." Also, what I am commenting on from the CRADA is a subjective selection of what I think is the most important or remarkable statements made in the CRADA. I have very likely missed noticing the implications of other important statements and details in the CRADA. That is one reason why I recommend you to study the CRADA carefully before reading my personal thoughts on it. Or, at least, at some point, study the CRADA in its entirety, and make up your own mind about its content.
So let me begin by commenting on some of the parts in the CRADA. My comments are not following the sections or articles in the CRADA in chronological order, but I am rather jumping back and forth between the different sections and articles.
First off, what is a CRADA? You can read more about what a CRADA is in general terms here. But for the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army, I think it is important to first point out that this research and development "deal" is not, at this stage, about making money. On page 18 in the CRADA in question, under "Article 7 - Financial Obligations", it says "...
If you click on the link above where you can read about what a CRADA is in general terms, you will find the following statement on what a CRADA can do: "Allow all parties to the CRADA to keep research results emerging from the CRADA confidential and free from disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act for up to 5 years."
The CRADA between TTSA and the U.S.Army Army
If you want to go into the details and technicalities of which of the parties (TTSA/Collaborator, and the U.S. Army/Government) have the rights and/or obligations to do what and how you can study "Article 4 - General Provisions" and "Article 5 - Intellectual Property" in the CRADA. When I read articles 4 and 5, I get the sense it is a quite conventional agreement. There is no obvious statement of terms that would give one or the other party the upper hand regarding any potential positive outcomes in theoretical or practical knowledge from the research.
But there is one thing that caught my attention in article 4, and that is the article "4.13.1" (page 11) with the title "Subcontracts and Government Support Contractors/SMEs." What is "SMEs?" It stands for (contractors) "subject matter experts." I wonder if private companies such as "Bigelow Aerospace" and "Lockheed Martin" (in this case, particularly the "Skunk Works" division), goes under the term SMEs? And, if one or several SMEs are used in the CRADA in question, what kind of rights and/or obligations does the SMEs have or not? And, of course, which SMEsare perhaps , or will be, involved in the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army (if any)?
I think an educated guess would be Bigelow Aerospace and Lockheed Skunk Works Martin, considering Robert Bigelow´s decades-long interest in and million of dollars spent on UFO-research, and his long history with some of the key individuals in TTSA, for example, Harold Puthoff. The COO of TTSA and its Aerospace division director is Steve Justice, who before joining TTSA worked for 39 years with Lockheed Martin, and 31 yearswith
The following is speculation, but perhaps the mysterious video of an "orb" that Bigelow Aerospace tweeted some time ago, together with journalist George Knapp´s comment that perhaps the video meant that Bigelow "is dipping his toes back into the water", was a hint that Bigelow Aerospace is somehow involved in the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army? You can watch the cryptic video from Bigelow Aerospace on Twitter and read Knapp´s comment on the same video here.
In the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army, the focus seems to be on exotic material, or as it is mentioned in the CRADA, "metamaterial." On page 20 in the CRADA, in "Section II - Joint Work Plan", under "Article B.1.", one can read that "The Collaborator has access to advancedmateriel materiel materiel
In one of the most remarkable articles in the CRADA, "Article D - Technical Tasks and Associated Resources", under "D.1. Government Activity.", it says that the Government shall:
1. Perform assessments, testing, and characterization of Collaborator-provided technologies. The Government is interested in a variety of the Collaborator´s technologies, such as but not limited to inertial mass reduction, mechanical/structural metamaterials, electromagnetic metamaterial waveguides, quantum physics, and quantum communications, and beamed energy propulsion. (My italics.).
That is what I would call novel and emerging technology. My point is so far that the U.S. Army in this CRADA is saying that TTSA has in its possession technologies such as "inertial mass reduction" and "electromagnetic metamaterial waveguides", etc. Remember that on page 20, under "Article B.1", it says that TTSA has access to advancedmateriel solutions. Solutions to which of the varieties of technologies of TTSA is at the moment unclear to me.
Those technologies sound like something out of a science fiction movie in my layman world (I am not a scientist or an engineer). I am not implying that TTSA does not have that kind of technology. I am saying it because the U.S. Navy patents by Salvatore Pais, a somewhat mysterious aerospace engineer at "Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division" (NAWCAD), have been called stuff of science fiction, and that those patents are not applicable in a real-life situation. So I am just throwing out the question: what if those U.S. Navy patents should not be dismissed as yet?
That is a lot of "ifs", and here comes one more, and perhaps, the most important one:
If it is an attempt from the U.S. Government to disclose and disseminate extraterrestrial technology, why now? Because of the environmental crisis? I do not think so, unfortunately. Because of a coming threat? Yes, if any of this scenario is likely at all. What kind of threat? From extraterrestrials? Well, perhaps in the far future. Are Russia and China the threat? Yes, probably. I think the most likely answer to "why now?" is the ongoing space race. That is, if there is any truth to the speculation that the U.S. government and probably other governments, for decades, have had extraterrestrial material and technology in their possession.
Personally, I do not know. I have not made up my mind on the claims - in some cases of very prominent individuals - about "UFO crash retrieval programs" and "reverse engineered ET-technology." Simply because I have not seen any convincing evidence, which does not mean that it cannot be true. But my main objection to this "reversed engineered ET-technology"-scenario is why we do not have a nation that dominates the world? Any nation, or any government, would not have any human enemies with that kind of technology. Could any government with that kind of exotic and advanced technology resist the temptation to not dominate the world?
Ok, those last paragraphs are speculative and meant to elicit some thoughts and questions about "what does the CRADA mean in a bigger picture?" You can obviously ask other questions and frame "what is going on?" in other ways. For instance, you could go with the scenario that Tom DeLonge's high official advisors allegedly have told him
Back to the CRADA. Perhaps the most remarkable article in the CRADA is found in "Article C - Parties and other Participants" (page 20), and more specifically, in "C.2. Other Participants" (page 21). It says on page 21:
Before you ask yourself, "what does it mean?", first ask why put C.2.in the CRADA at all? One answer to the "what" seems to be that the U.S. Army - really the U.S. government - is confirming that TTSA ("the Collaborator") has in its possession "exotic material" (my term), or metamaterial, that the U.S. Government, in some or all of the cases, seems to know the findings and origin of.
In the following, I will do my best to distinguish between "facts" and "speculation." Also, what I am commenting on from the CRADA is a subjective selection of what I think is the most important or remarkable statements made in the CRADA. I have very likely missed noticing the implications of other important statements and details in the CRADA. That is one reason why I recommend you to study the CRADA carefully before reading my personal thoughts on it. Or, at least, at some point, study the CRADA in its entirety, and make up your own mind about its content.
So let me begin by commenting on some of the parts in the CRADA. My comments are not following the sections or articles in the CRADA in chronological order, but I am rather jumping back and forth between the different sections and articles.
First off, what is a CRADA? You can read more about what a CRADA is in general terms here. But for the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army, I think it is important to first point out that this research and development "deal" is not, at this stage, about making money. On page 18 in the CRADA in question, under "Article 7 - Financial Obligations", it says "
If you click on the link above where you can read about what a CRADA is in general terms, you will find the following statement on what a CRADA can do: "Allow all parties to the CRADA to keep research results emerging from the CRADA confidential and free from disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act for up to 5 years."
The CRADA between TTSA and the U.S.
If you want to go into the details and technicalities of which of the parties (TTSA/Collaborator, and the U.S. Army/Government) have the rights and/or obligations to do what and how you can study "Article 4 - General Provisions" and "Article 5 - Intellectual Property" in the CRADA. When I read articles 4 and 5, I get the sense it is a quite conventional agreement. There is no obvious statement of terms that would give one or the other party the upper hand regarding any potential positive outcomes in theoretical or practical knowledge from the research.
But there is one thing that caught my attention in article 4, and that is the article "4.13.1" (page 11) with the title "Subcontracts and Government Support Contractors/SMEs." What is "SMEs?" It stands for (contractors) "subject matter experts." I wonder if private companies such as "Bigelow Aerospace" and "Lockheed Martin" (in this case, particularly the "Skunk Works" division), goes under the term SMEs? And, if one or several SMEs are used in the CRADA in question, what kind of rights and/or obligations does the SMEs have or not? And, of course, which SMEs
I think an educated guess would be Bigelow Aerospace and Lockheed Skunk Works Martin, considering Robert Bigelow´s decades-long interest in and million of dollars spent on UFO-research, and his long history with some of the key individuals in TTSA, for example, Harold Puthoff. The COO of TTSA and its Aerospace division director is Steve Justice, who before joining TTSA worked for 39 years with Lockheed Martin, and 31 years
The following is speculation, but perhaps the mysterious video of an "orb" that Bigelow Aerospace tweeted some time ago, together with journalist George Knapp´s comment that perhaps the video meant that Bigelow "is dipping his toes back into the water", was a hint that Bigelow Aerospace is somehow involved in the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army? You can watch the cryptic video from Bigelow Aerospace on Twitter and read Knapp´s comment on the same video here.
In the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army, the focus seems to be on exotic material, or as it is mentioned in the CRADA, "metamaterial." On page 20 in the CRADA, in "Section II - Joint Work Plan", under "Article B.1.", one can read that "The Collaborator has access to advanced
In one of the most remarkable articles in the CRADA, "Article D - Technical Tasks and Associated Resources", under "D.1. Government Activity.", it says that the Government shall:
1. Perform assessments, testing, and characterization of Collaborator-provided technologies. The Government is interested in a variety of the Collaborator´s technologies, such as but not limited to inertial mass reduction, mechanical/structural metamaterials, electromagnetic metamaterial waveguides, quantum physics, and quantum communications, and beamed energy propulsion. (My italics.).
That is what I would call novel and emerging technology. My point is so far that the U.S. Army in this CRADA is saying that TTSA has in its possession technologies such as "inertial mass reduction" and "electromagnetic metamaterial waveguides", etc. Remember that on page 20, under "Article B.1", it says that TTSA has access to advanced
Those technologies sound like something out of a science fiction movie in my layman world (I am not a scientist or an engineer). I am not implying that TTSA does not have that kind of technology. I am saying it because the U.S. Navy patents by Salvatore Pais, a somewhat mysterious aerospace engineer at "Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division" (NAWCAD), have been called stuff of science fiction, and that those patents are not applicable in a real-life situation. So I am just throwing out the question: what if those U.S. Navy patents should not be dismissed as yet?
You can take a look at Salvatore Cezar Pais´ patents, inventions and patent applications at the following link: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/salvatore-pais. One application is for a "craft using an inertial mass reduction device," filed April 28, 2016.
Anyhow, I do not believe it is a coincidence that those strange U.S. Navy patents surfaced in the mainstream media around the same time as the U.S. Navy confirmed the three videos (FLIR1, Gimbal, and Go Fast) are showing "unidentified aerial phenomenon" (UAP). Neither do I think it is a coincidence that those U.S. Navy patents surfaced in the public domain sometime before the announcement of the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army. Below you find two of the more grounded articles on Salvatore Pais´ "UFO patents", both written by Brett Tingley and Tyler Rogoway for The Drive / The War Zone. The first link goes to the article about the so-called "UFO patents", published on June 28, 2019. The second link goes to the article about Salvatore Pais´latest patent for a "compact fusion reactor," published on October 9, 2019.
Is there any connection between the U.S. Navy "UFO patents" and the cooperation between TTSA and the U.S. Army on novel and emerging technologies? An obvious connection is that Elizondo and the U.S. Navy cooperated during Elizondo´s time at the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP) and that both the U.S. Navy and Elizondo have been pushing for disclosure (where is the U.S. Air Force in all of this?). Is it an indication that the three UAP/UFO videos released by the Department of Defense (DoD) are showing man-made technology? If yes, could the same three UFO videos show reverse-engineered "extraterrestrial" technology, that is, a technology that did not originate from this planet (at least some aspect of the technology)? If yes, is the "UFO patents" by Salvatore Pais and the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S.Army Government
Anyhow, I do not believe it is a coincidence that those strange U.S. Navy patents surfaced in the mainstream media around the same time as the U.S. Navy confirmed the three videos (FLIR1, Gimbal, and Go Fast) are showing "unidentified aerial phenomenon" (UAP). Neither do I think it is a coincidence that those U.S. Navy patents surfaced in the public domain sometime before the announcement of the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S. Army. Below you find two of the more grounded articles on Salvatore Pais´ "UFO patents", both written by Brett Tingley and Tyler Rogoway for The Drive / The War Zone. The first link goes to the article about the so-called "UFO patents", published on June 28, 2019. The second link goes to the article about Salvatore Pais´latest patent for a "compact fusion reactor," published on October 9, 2019.
- https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28729/docs-show-navy-got-ufo-patent-granted-by-warning-of-similar-chinese-tech-advances
- https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30256/scientist-behind-the-navys-ufo-patents-has-now-filed-one-for-a-compact-fusion-reactor
Is there any connection between the U.S. Navy "UFO patents" and the cooperation between TTSA and the U.S. Army on novel and emerging technologies? An obvious connection is that Elizondo and the U.S. Navy cooperated during Elizondo´s time at the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP) and that both the U.S. Navy and Elizondo have been pushing for disclosure (where is the U.S. Air Force in all of this?). Is it an indication that the three UAP/UFO videos released by the Department of Defense (DoD) are showing man-made technology? If yes, could the same three UFO videos show reverse-engineered "extraterrestrial" technology, that is, a technology that did not originate from this planet (at least some aspect of the technology)? If yes, is the "UFO patents" by Salvatore Pais and the CRADA between TTSA and the U.S.
That is a lot of "ifs", and here comes one more, and perhaps, the most important one:
If it is an attempt from the U.S. Government to disclose and disseminate extraterrestrial technology, why now? Because of the environmental crisis? I do not think so, unfortunately. Because of a coming threat? Yes, if any of this scenario is likely at all. What kind of threat? From extraterrestrials? Well, perhaps in the far future. Are Russia and China the threat? Yes, probably. I think the most likely answer to "why now?" is the ongoing space race. That is, if there is any truth to the speculation that the U.S. government and probably other governments, for decades, have had extraterrestrial material and technology in their possession.
Personally, I do not know. I have not made up my mind on the claims - in some cases of very prominent individuals - about "UFO crash retrieval programs" and "reverse engineered ET-technology." Simply because I have not seen any convincing evidence, which does not mean that it cannot be true. But my main objection to this "reversed engineered ET-technology"-scenario is why we do not have a nation that dominates the world? Any nation, or any government, would not have any human enemies with that kind of technology. Could any government with that kind of exotic and advanced technology resist the temptation to not dominate the world?
Ok, those last paragraphs are speculative and meant to elicit some thoughts and questions about "what does the CRADA mean in a bigger picture?" You can obviously ask other questions and frame "what is going on?" in other ways. For instance, you could go with the scenario that Tom DeLonge's high official advisors allegedly have told him
The most remarkable article in the CRADA
Back to the CRADA. Perhaps the most remarkable article in the CRADA is found in "Article C - Parties and other Participants" (page 20), and more specifically, in "C.2. Other Participants" (page 21). It says on page 21:
The other contributorsfor this effort are:
1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) can share historical reports of findings and origin of materiel solutions in the possession of the Collaborator.
Before you ask yourself, "what does it mean?", first ask why put C.2.
One answer to the "why" can be a stepping up of the disclosure process of the UFO phenomena. I say "can be" because we still have not seen any scientific reports or results from the studies that TTSA has done with its exotic material. If you have not already, I would highly recommend you read this transcription by Jack Sarfatti of Harold Puthoff´s presentation at the SSE/IRVA conference in Las Vegas on June 8th, 2018. In that presentation, Puthoff gives some pretty good clues about what some of the exotic materials that TTSA has in its possession can be or not be. And now, more than a year after Harold Puthoff´s presentation in Las Vegas, the U.S. Army (the U.S. Government) is interested in taking a look at those exotic materials.
That the OSD is one of the known and explicit contributors is not a coincidence. Neither is the fact that the former OSD employee Luis Elizondo is the "Principal Investigator" on behalf of TTSA (the Collaborator) in the CRADA. "Share historical reports of findings and origin of materiel solutions in the possession" of TTSA.Elizondo´s former and current employer. Intriguing.
That the OSD is one of the known and explicit contributors is not a coincidence. Neither is the fact that the former OSD employee Luis Elizondo is the "Principal Investigator" on behalf of TTSA (the Collaborator) in the CRADA. "Share historical reports of findings and origin of materiel solutions in the possession" of TTSA.
How much knowledge (data, information) about the UFO phenomena has AATIP gathered so far? Yes, AATIP is still running, but probably under a different name. We can be pretty certain of that since Luis Elizondo himself said so in the History channel documentary "Unidentified." Not only did he say that in the documentary, but he also said that the program continues its mission with the government's blessings. In one of the episodes of "Unidentified", Elizondo was even shown to meet and collaborate with active officers in a running UFO program (AATIP-like program).
Now, what all of that means to the CRADA, and in the bigger picture of the disclosure process, I am not certain. For now, I find it remarkable that the article "C.2." about the OSD is in the CRADA at all and intriguing that Luis Elizondo is a former employee of the OSD and the principal investigator in the CRADA for his current employer, TTSA.
Let me summarize and be clear with some of the certain conclusions I think that we can draw from the CRADA in question:
Let me summarize some of the more speculative claims I have made in the text above:
What the reader should take with them from this post are conclusions 1 - 6. The rest is speculation, and perhaps, nonsense, from my part. We have to be patient and follow the development of this exciting agreement between TTSA and the U.S. Army, or, really, the U.S. government. No one, except the people directly involved, knows the agenda behind the CRADA in question. I can only hope that the research and the outcomes of this CRADA will be as transparent as possible. And if transparency is not important in this case, why make the CRADA public in the first place?
Two final questions:
Is the consciousness aspect of the UFO-phenomena a part of this research and development agreement between TTSA and the U.S. Army?
Perhaps some of the alleged debris from UFOs are, or becomes, conscious under certain conditions?
Take care!
/Janne
Now, what all of that means to the CRADA, and in the bigger picture of the disclosure process, I am not certain. For now, I find it remarkable that the article "C.2." about the OSD is in the CRADA at all and intriguing that Luis Elizondo is a former employee of the OSD and the principal investigator in the CRADA for his current employer, TTSA.
Let me summarize and be clear with some of the certain conclusions I think that we can draw from the CRADA in question:
- The CRADA between TTSA and the U.S Army is not fake or a hoax. It is real.
- The U.S. Army states in the CRADA that TTSA is a company "with materiel and technology innovations that offer capability advancements for Army ground vehicle."
- On page 21 in the CRADA, it says that "the Government is interested in a variety of the Collaborator´s technologies, such as but not limited to inertial mass reduction, mechanical/structural metamaterials, electromagnetic metamaterials waveguides..."
- The CRADA states that another contributor
to - There is no funding involved.
- All of the above (1 - 5) gives legitimacy to the scientific work of TTSA.
Let me summarize some of the more speculative claims I have made in the text above:
- The CRADA, taken as a piece in a bigger picture, can be a step by the U.S. Government to disclose that it has had "ET"-technology in its possession for decades. Why? It needs help to understand and "crack" the advanced technology. Compartmentalization is ineffective, unproductive, and way too expensive.
- Why? A real threat is coming—either an extraterrestrial or a human
threat Blumentahl - Since the OSD is listed as a contributor, the OSD being Luis Elizondo´s former employer, and Elizondo manages the CRADA on behalf of TTSA (his current employer): It can mean that the AATIP, for some reason, is involved in the CRADA.
What the reader should take with them from this post are conclusions 1 - 6. The rest is speculation, and perhaps, nonsense, from my part. We have to be patient and follow the development of this exciting agreement between TTSA and the U.S. Army, or, really, the U.S. government. No one, except the people directly involved, knows the agenda behind the CRADA in question. I can only hope that the research and the outcomes of this CRADA will be as transparent as possible. And if transparency is not important in this case, why make the CRADA public in the first place?
Two final questions:
Is the consciousness aspect of the UFO-phenomena a part of this research and development agreement between TTSA and the U.S. Army?
Perhaps some of the alleged debris from UFOs are, or becomes, conscious under certain conditions?
Take care!
/Janne
No comments:
Post a Comment