Thursday 12 December 2019

Odd incongruities in the USS Nimitz 2004 UFO encounter story

"12-03-19 Chris Lambright, Mysteries of the US Navy and UFOs." Live-streamed on Martin Willis Live Shows YouTube channel, on December 4, 2019. Duration: 1:49:06.

 From the video description:

Guest Chris Lambright discusses his research into the US Navy, and its relation to UFOs, which includes the USS Nimitz UFO Encounter, also Bigelow Aerospace as well as connections between the US government & TTSA and more.
CHRISTIAN LAMBRIGHT has worked extensively in Computer Technology and Internet services, has a background in graphic arts, illustration, and CGI, and holds a degree in Psychology from Baylor University. He is a former investigator for the Center for UFO Studies and contributor to the Computer UFO Network, and is a licensed private investigator. Currently in Austin, Texas, he is working on a documentary film on a classic sighting, doing independent research, and always writing.
CHECK OUT HIS 22 PAGE DOCUMENT ON THE SUBJECT HERE: https://podcastufo.com/show-notes/chr... With active links here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1waE8...

In this post, I will comment on some important questions Mr Chris Lambright raises in his paper, particularly his questions about the Nimitz UFO encounter (see his paper in any of the two links in the video description above). In the interview above, you can listen to host Mr Martin Willis and Lambright talk about his paper, but I am only commenting on some parts of Lambright´s paper. Which parts, I am explaining further down.

With this post, I hope to illustrate the amount of information a single individual has to keep track of and process (which is impossible) to reach conclusions with any degree of certainty. Which is why collaboration between researcher is essential in the search for the truth about not only Lambright´s questions but about the UFO phenomena in general.

In the interview, Willis and Lambright are basically going through the content of a paper that Lambright quite recently published. Around the 16:00 minute mark, Lambright explains why he wrote his paper called "Bigelow, BAASS, the Nimitz encounters, and To The Stars Academy" and gives an overview of the four parts of his paper:
Part 1: Questions from the Nimitz narrative.
Part 2: Questions on a Navy investigation behind AASWAP/AATIP.
Part 3: DeLonge - Lockheed - TTSA.
Part 4: Why a `To The Stars Academy.´

In this post, I am mainly interested in Lambright´s part 1, part 2, and, to a lesser degree, in part 4. My thoughts and comments will be on Lambright´s paper and what he writes in the three parts I am mainly interested in. So I highly recommend the reader to actually read Lambright´s paper, not only because I am commenting on the paper rather than what is said in Willis´ interview, but also because there are details in the paper that the interview does not cover.

Just to be clear, Lambright is not questioning that something did happen or that objects were seen during the USS Nimitz 2004 encounters. Neither am I. On page 2 in his paper Lambright writes:
What began to raise questions for this author was that as information came to light there were odd incongruities not just in the Nimitz events as described, but in how it was being presented to the public by TTSA. Those questions led to other questions ranging from the involvement of Bigelow Aerospace, to how AATIP continued until 2017 (and apparently continues to this day), and why some persons appeared on the TTSA ‘team’ while others did not.
But before I share my personal thoughts and comments on Lambright´s paper, I would like to take the opportunity to give my perspective on what it will take to further our understanding not only on a specific UFO encounter but on the UFO phenomena in general.

After the section below, I give an overview of what I interpret to be Lambright´s key questions, and in the final section, you will find my personal thoughts and comments on his key questions.

How to keep track of massive amounts of data? Collaboration!


I did not know about Lambright´s paper until I saw and listened to the above episode of the Martin Willis Live Show, thanks to Twitter user @Akam1129. A couple of days after the interview, many of us interested in the UFO phenomena and disclosure were hit by the 180-degree turnaround by the Pentagon regarding the purpose of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) and Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AASWAP). You can read more about the Pentagon´s turnaround, thanks to theblackvault.com, on the following link: https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/the-pentagon-corrects-record-on-secret-ufo-program/.

I am speculating, but perhaps one of the reasons for the Pentagon´s turnaround regarding that AATIP and AAWSAP did not study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) or Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), is the opinion piece written by Christopher Mellon on November 2, 2019? If you have not already, you can read Mellon´s article on the following link:https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/467860-navy-acknowledges-ufos-why-arent-they-on-washingtons-radar.

 I am quite certain that one reason behind the Pentagon´s turnaround is to scare away any potential military witnesses to UFO sightings and encounters. For example, according to witnesses like Gary Voorhis, there were a lot of people on board the USS Princeton who saw the high-quality video (and longer, according to Voorhis) of the "Tic Tac" (or the "FLIR1" video).

I am purposely filling this post with links that are related to Lambright´s paper. Why? Because I want to illustrate how much information a single individual has to keep track of, remember, put it in a bigger context, and synthesize. It is almost impossible for a single brain to process it all, get a clear and accurate picture of what really happened and about what is going on.

Just to further illustrate the amount of information that is related to Lambright´s paper and clarify the difficulty of getting closer to the truth of the USS Nimitz 2004 UFO encounters, and on what is going on at the moment with the careful and selective disclosure process (or whatever is going on?), here come additional links to vital information:

Ultimately, these five men—the “other” Nimitz witnesses—could be key to understanding an event that a leading aviation defense expert says “likely wasn’t ours.”
So whose was it?

Both men share facts and details with us about the systems they operated during their time in service with the US Navy Strike Carrier Group 11, and some of the possibilities they have considered about the famous USS Nimitz UFO incident of 2004.

There is, of course, additional and important information to be aware of and have an understanding of that I have not included in this post. For instance, I highly recommend reading the links in Lambright´s paper (listed in the order of appearance at the end of the paper).

But I think that what I have included is enough for anyone with some degree of common sense to realize that there are, at the moment, no black and white answers to what happened during those approximately two weeks in November in 2004 around the US Navy Strike Carrier Group 11 (the USS Nimitz, the USS Princeton, and other weapon platforms). We cannot yet, with 100 % certainty, determine what the "Tic Tacs" are or are not.

So what is the problem? The main problem is that whatever agency or department in possession of the original data from the USS Nimitz UFO encounters does not seem willing to share that data with the general public. That unwillingness is, of course, true of the UFO phenomena in general, and it is a historical fact. Perhaps 90 % of the data on the UFO phenomena are behind closed sources (secret, classified), and 10 % of the data can be found in open sources (in the public domain).

What happens next is neither strange nor a surprise; people try to fill that void of data with their assumptions and premature conclusions based on their personal beliefs and wishes of what the "Tic Tac" is or is not (or the UFO phenomena in general). I am not an exception. This is because of what social psychology calls our innate "need for knowledge." It increases one's chances for survival if one is curious and has the courage to explore the environment. To be curious and explore with other people is even better, more effective, and safe. At least in most situations, and depending on if there is a genuine group effort or teamwork.

That is why it is fundamental and crucial that everyone who wants to know the truth - not what we want, wish or believe to be true - tries to collaborate, genuinely listen to each other's perspectives,  and share information in an open, respectful and transparent manner. As I have already said, a single individual can't keep track of, understand and put together the massive amounts of data in an accurate, clear and coherent picture. I know this kind of respectful and productive collaboration is already taking place among some ufo researchers. I am glad it is (even if I am not a researcher but a simple armchair commentator).

Ok. The main problem is the lack of original data. That leads to people having to rely on the accuracy of witness reports. As with all witness reports, no matter the context or event, there are going to be differences in the witness accounts of "when", "what", "who", "how", and "why." That is natural. So, I do not think anyone familiar with the USS Nimitz UFO encounters doubts the honesty, competence, and integrity of the witnesses who have come forward so far. I do not doubt any witness testimonies from the USS Nimitz UFO encounters, neither the witnesses from the 2014/2015 UFO encounters. Neither does Lambright doubt the character and integrity of the witnesses. On the contrary. Especially in the interview above, he expresses his high regard for all the witnesses who so far have spoken out about the Nimitz UFO encounter.

Still, those incongruities, and in some cases, inconsistencies, between the different witness reports need to be explored and addressed to get a clearer and more accurate picture of what those "Tic Tacs" can be or not be ("that is the question", sorry Shakespeare).

Furthermore, to get an answer to what the "Tic Tacs" are or rule out with a high degree of certainty what they are not, we need to better estimate what happened before, during and after those two weeks in November 2004.

I took this long trajectory from Lambright´s paper because I think it is important to emphasize the amount of information necessary to process before making any claims about particularly what the "Tic Tacs" are or are not.

I still believe that the "Tic Tac" that Cmdr David Fravor had visual contact with does not originate from man-made technology. At the same time, I do not think we quite yet can rule out the possibility that the "Tic Tac" is man-made with 100 % certainty. Of course, a third possibility is that the "Tic Tac" is part "ET" and part human, that is, reverse engineered.

But no matter the answer to what the "Tic Tac" that Cmdr Fravor saw with his own eyes is or is not, the description by Cmdr Fravor of its manoeuvrability and propulsion suggests technology and a potential energy source that could probably solve many of humanities current problems.

Now, that is reason enough to ask questions and demand to know the truth.

I believe Lambright and I have the same approach to this whole situation with the Nimitz UFO encounters, TTSA, disclosure, etc., and that is that both of us just want some straight answers. Simple as that. Personally, I only care about knowing the truth, whatever the truth turns out to be, but I am painfully aware that I cannot come close to the truth all on my own.

The search for the truth is both an individual and a social process. That is why I appreciate researchers like Chris Lambright taking the time to analyze, for instance, the Nimitz UFO encounter and ask reasonable, relevant questions.

So, irrespective of personal and current opinions, perspectives on what the "Tic Tac" is or is not, on the intentions of TTSA, and so on and so forth, everyone truly interested in getting some straight answers should put their respective ego aside. Including myself. We have to realize that we are all part of something bigger.

Now, let us take a look at Lambright´s paper.


Overview of Lambright´s questions in part 1, part 2, and part 4 


First, I will summarize what I interpret to be Lambright´s key questions in part 1, part 2, and part 4 of his paper. I have only selected the questions and other logical disconnects that Lambright raises in his paper that I think is valid. I do not think all of Lambright´s questions are relevant or hard to find a sensible explanation. So I will only comment on the ones I consider worthwhile to further investigate. After this section, I will also comment on Lambright´s closing part, "Why this matters to me (and should for all of us)," but not list any questions of the closing part in this section.

Just like Lambright writes at the beginning of his paper, I am in the same way, presuming that the reader is quite familiar with the USS Nimitz 2004 UFO encounters. 

After this overview of Lambright´s key questions, there is a final section with my comments on some (not all) of the key questions listed below.

For more context and a better understanding of Lambright´s key questions, please read his paper and/or listen to the interview above.

Let us begin with what I interpret as Lambright´s main concerns and key questions in part 1, "Questions from the Nimitz narrative" (pages 2 to 6).

  1. Did Cmdr Fravor and Cmdr Kurth experience two separate UFO encounters?
  2. What did Cmdr Kurth see (if anything) in the Nimitz exercise in November of 2004?
  3. From Lambright´s paper: "Why was Douglas Kurth the one to suddenly reappear in 2007 working at Bigelow Aerospace?"
  4. From Lambright´s paper: "Considering the interest focused today on any witness with knowledge of the Nimitz encounters—why does Douglas Kurth seem to have intentionally been dropped off the radar."
I would like to add a question to part 1. Lambright mentions this curious detail in his paper, and it is something that I have wondered about since I read or heard about it, probably in some interview with Cmdr David Fravor: Why were both Fravor and Kurth asked the question by USS Princeton about what ordnance (weapons, ammunition) they had on board? 

Next, I interpret Lambright´s key questions in part 2, "Questions on a Navy investigation behind AAWSAP/AATIP" (pages 7 to 12).
  1. Why does it seem that Cmdr Fravor, the principal eyewitness in the Nimitz UFO encounters, was not interviewed about his encounter with the "Tic Tac" until 2017? (Or was he?).
  2. Who made the investigation around 2009/2010 of the Nimitz UFO encounters that generated a classified version of the "Executive summary?" Office of Naval Investigations (ONI)? AATIP? Both? Another government agency or military UFO program? 
  3. If an early (2007?, or 2009/2010?) classified investigation was made, why were not the witnesses speaking out today (Kevin Day, Gary Voorhis, PJ Hughes, Jason Turner, and others) interviewed? 
  4. Who, and why, provided Paco Chierici with a copy of the classified report (see question nr.2.), knowing Chierici, in early 2015, was working on an article about Cmdr Fravor´s encounter (the article was published on March 14, 2015)? At the same time, personnel at BAASS (and AAWSAP?) were in 2009/2010 provided a declassified version (the "Executive summary") of the classified and exhaustive report. What does it indicate? My additional question would be, did Paco Chierici really get a copy of the classified report or was he provided the declassified version called the "Executive summary"? Or even a third version of the "unofficial" declassified report?
  5. When did Luis Elizondo get involved in the investigations of the Nimitz UFO encounters?
  6. What position and influence did Elizondo have during his years in AATIP? I believe this question is one of the most significant ones, so I will quote the following from Lambright´s paper:
In his purported resignation letter, Luis Elizondo is shown as the Director, National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD(I)”. Searching online finds virtually no information about exactly what this position does, though where it is located clearly makes it a significant responsibility. As one of the Staff Directorates under OUSD(I), “national programs” appear to fall under the “Sensitive Activities Directorate”, which is responsible in part for ensuring that only proper personnel have clearance to Special Access Programs. If Luis Elizondo was the Director of a staff of personnel responsible for this level of security, not to mention whatever would require “national programs special management”, he was undoubtedly in a high-level position responsible for top-down security. His position in the Nimitz-BAASS-TTSA story must have been far more significant than simply someone at “the Pentagon” gathering UFO/UAP reports at the behest of someone at BAASS.

 I see it as something positive in the disclosure process that Luis Elizondo´s role in AATIP seems to have been more significant than "simply" directing, or managing, the Pentagon´s secret UFO program.

Finally, we arrive at the last part of Lambright´s paper I am focusing on. The following is my interpretation of Lambright´s key question in part 4, "Why a To The Stars Academy?" (page 14 to 16, including "Final thoughts"). This is the part of Lambright´s paper I am most critical of, but more about that after this overview.

  1. From Lambright´s paper: "Why come out of the decades spent in the black world of intelligence and classified contracts and suddenly go full mainstream pronouncing ‘UAPs’ represent an advanced technology that is unknown to us—and then form an entertainment, science, and aerospace company?" Lambright is referring to the members in TTSA with backgrounds in the Department of Defense, CIA, and private defence contractors; why come out from the "shadows" and into the public "spotlight?" 
  2. Lambright on the CRADA between the US Army and TTSA, and what TTSA might already have to offer in terms of technology: "So what do they have, or what could they have shown the Army that was convincing enough that the Army would provide all those resources for nothing?"
  3. What does the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) participation in the CRADA indicate about the nature and agenda of TTSA? "Does that sound like a startup company with no behind-the-curtain government ties?" asks Lambright in his paper. 
The end of my overview. One part is left connected to part 4 and titled "Final Thoughts" (page 15 and 16). I will make a comment on "Final Thoughts" in the section below.


My comments on the mentioned parts of Lambright´s paper


First, I want to thank Mr Chris Lambright for taking the time and effort to research, analyze, and write the paper. Overall, Lambright raises relevant, important questions for anyone who cares and is interested in further reflecting upon and investigating. So well done!

Before I continue with my comments on parts 1, 2, 4, and the closing words "Why this matters to me (and should for all of us)", I will make a comment on "Final Thoughts." Specifically, I want to comment on what I think are two common misconceptions about TTSA that Lambright is far from alone to have. Those misconceptions are 1) that TTSA does not include the "ufo community" and 2) that TTSA is touting a "potential threat narrative" about UFOs/UAPs. 

In general, Lambright tries to be nuanced in his paper, and he looks at the questions and logical disconnects he raises from different perspectives. Most of the time, he succeeds. But in part 4 and in "Final Thoughts", his tone gets a bit more suspicious and his reasoning a bit more one-sided compared to the rest of the paper. That is the feeling I get when I read those parts in the paper, but I may, of course, be wrong. 

Back to the two misconceptions about TTSA. Before Lambright goes into discussing the two misconceptions (misconceptions, in my view), he recognizes that: 
To be fair, perhaps those in TTSA are actually trying to do something
for all of us, and this was the only way to do it.
Then he questions the motive of TTSA to push the concept of the UFO phenomena to be a potential threat. Implicitly, but still obvious, Lambright alludes to the potential threat narrative to be means to get defence contracts, more investors, and so on and so forth. That may very well be the case.

But does one motive, or agenda, exclude another? Perhaps, TTSA´s motive and agenda are both to make money - after all, it is registered as a company, and everyone has bills to pay - and to facilitate the ongoing careful and selective disclosure process.

But the one thing I have the hardest time comprehending with the misconception of  TTSA spinning a potential threat narrative is that it is wrong, biased, warmongering, and whatnot. For me, it is the other way around. Of course, we have to approach the UFO phenomena as a potential threat. It is common sense, right? No one knows who or what is behind the UFO phenomena (at least, that kind of knowledge has not been made public in an official way). More importantly, no one knows the intentions of who- or whatever is behind those unidentified aerial phenomena (again, at least not in an official way). Furthermore, we are most likely dealing with different forms of intelligence with different intentions and agendas. The keyword here is "potential." Think about the meaning of the word "potential." There is more to add that speaks against the notion that TTSA´s main motive is to spin a threat narrative, but I leave that discussion for now.

With that said, I think Lambright addresses other issues with TTSA in "Final Thoughts", which I think are reasonable. For instance, issues, so far, with openness about TTSA´s research activities, and lack of clear communication to shareholders (for the record, I am not a shareholder in TTSA). With all due respect, Tom DeLonge, but my personal issue would be your "teasing" on social media. Other reasonable issues or questions about TTSA that Lambright raises in his paper, I will come back to in a minute (or two...).

So what about TTSA "not including" the ufo community? Well, it depends on what we mean by "include." Since I have never been a ufo researcher - I take the subject seriously, but the subject is more of an interest I feel passionate about - but Lambright has been for many years, he and I probably have a somewhat different idea on how "include" would look like concretely and practically. In "Final Thoughts", Lambright writes:
But the community of researchers who have been wanting serious public research for years are essentially excluded. The ‘ufo community’ is used to create buzz and offer up information, but that same community is not included in any meaningful way.
If I had invested a lot of time, effort, and perhaps money in researching and writing about the UFO phenomena - longing for serious public research for years - then I can understand researchers like Chris Lambright. I respect his perception of the current situation with the "ufo scene." Most of us interested in the truth about the UFO phenomena was hopeful when TTSA entered the scene in October of 2017. Experienced researcher or not, I think most of us thought, "Holy cow, disclosure is finally happening!"

 In hindsight, I think I was unfair to TTSA by having too high expectations of what its members could accomplish. What has TTSA accomplished during these two years (and soon two months)?

From my perspective, quite a lot. I am not going to remind the reader about the progress made since TTSA entered the scene. With that said, is Lambright right in his analysis that TTSA has not included the ufo community? From his position and perspective, all I can answer is that it seems like TTSA have not included enough. I see a TTSA that has been around on quite many UFO conferences and done interviews in several radio programs and podcasts covering the UFO phenomena.

To conclude "Final Thoughts", I can understand Lambright´s frustration or disappointment, and to some extent, I agree with his opinion that researchers are omitted. On the other hand, I think his opinion is a bit unfair, or biased, considering the degree of participation members of TTSA actually have engaged in, both in the US and abroad (Italy and Brazil come to mind). Perhaps most important to remember is that TTSA has never claimed to have the ufo community as their primary target group.

But then again, what have I said about transparent collaboration?


My comments on Lambright´s key questions in part 1


First off, I do not have answers to the questions and logical disconnects that Lambright brings up in parts 1, 2, and 4 of his paper, but rather more and somewhat different questions. If you listen to the interview above, you will hear Lambright say that his paper aims not to give answers but rather generate new questions and different angles to look at his questions from. I think of Lambrigh´s paper as mainly a call to researchers with different backgrounds and knowledge to look at and solve the puzzle together. If so, I applaud him for that.

Secondly, I will not comment on every single question from Lambright´s paper I have listed above in the section "Overview of Lambright´s questions in part 1, part 2, and part 4." I will comment on the questions I think are the most pertinent, and/or I think I have something sensible to add to or expand on. After I have made my comments on parts 1, 2 and 4, I will end this post by commenting on Lambright´s final chapter, "Why this matters to me...".

Lastly, as often the case with reading and trying to understand someone´s written word, there is the risk of misinterpreting, missing key points, etc. I have likely made some of those errors. That is why I urge the reader not to trust my interpretation of Lambright´s key question. Furthermore, if the reader is not familiar with the content in Lambright´s paper, then my comments will probably seem to be taken out of context. So, read the paper, listen to the interview, and make up your own mind.

Ok. The first key question in part 1 is, "Did Cmdr Fravor and Cmdr Kurth experience two separate encounters?" What Lambright is focusing on in part 1 is why there are different versions of the event on November 14, 2004. After reading Lambright´s paper on the timeline of the events just before and during David Fravor´s encounter with the "Tic Tac", I believe it is plausible that Douglas Kurth had some type of sighting (besides the disturbance in the water) and/or an encounter of an "unknown" object. For details on why it is plausible, please see Lambright´s paper, pages 2 to 6.

From the different accounts of what happened and when, during and after Kurth´s visual of the disturbance in the water, it seems more logical that Kurth was on-site for the entire "Tic Tac" encounter with Fravor. If that was the case, Kurth should have listened to the communication between Fravor´s fighter plane, the other planes, and USS Princeton. When I read the "Executive summary" (link in Lambright´s paper), I get the sense that Kurth was on-site when Fravor and the other fighter plane on their way back from their training were vectored to and reached the "merge plot." The "Executive summary" says that Kurth had launched from the USS Nimitz at "approximately 1030L" and returned at 1200.

  • At what time did Fravor´s plane, and the other plane, reach the merge plot? Approximately at what time did Kurth and Fravor respectively see the disturbance in the water (which the shape of, they describe differently)? 
  • Approximately at what time did Kurth see the disturbance vanish? When did Fravor see the disturbance vanish?
  • Did Kurth and Fravor see the same spot in the ocean where the disturbance occurred, or did they see two different disturbances taking place in different locations?
Let us entertain the possibility that Kurth and Fravor did not see the same disturbance in the water, just like Lambright does in his paper. The obvious question then becomes why it is not clearly stated in the "Executive summary" that a disturbance in the water was seen in two different locations?

Or did Kurth´s round shape of a disturbance vanish under the surface and then emerge as a "cross shape" when Fravor arrived? That is, Kurth and Fravor saw a disturbance in the water at the same location? Did the "Tic Tac" that Fravor had visual contact on coming out of the object, causing the disturbance in the water? If true, why are Kurth´s and Fravor´s descriptions of the shape of the disturbance different? Was the "cross shape" that Fravor observed a result of the round-shaped disturbance (Kurth´s description) closing its "hatches" after letting out the "Tic Tac?"

What could speak for the case that Kurth had a separate sighting and/or encounter than Fravor is that Kurth´s witness report seems to have, with Lambright´s words, "intentionally been dropped off the radar." Neither Lambright nor I am claiming that it has been intentionally dropped off. At the same time, I would like to know what is said about Kurth´s witness report in the classified version of the "Executive summary." Another thing that could speak for the case that Kurth at least had some sort of sighting is the email reply to Navy FOIA officials by a LtCol Rob "Dahigi" Tomlinson; you can read that reply on page 4 in Lambright´s paper.

According to Paco Chierici, he was provided with the classified version in 2015 when writing his article There I Was: The X-Files Edition. In this interview on the Hidden Truth Show from December 9, 2019, Chierici says the provided report was 25-30 pages. At the 10:30 minute mark, Chierici talks about the classified report. Not only that, he has the report in the studio, which, of course, is strange.

This takes us to part 2 of Lambright´s paper.


My comments on Lambright´s key questions in part 2


In my overview above, the fourth key question in part 2 is "Who, and why, provided Paco Chierici with a copy of the classified report (see question nr.2.), knowing Chierici, in early 2015, was working on an article about Cmdr Fravor´s encounter (the article was published on March 14, 2015)? At the same time, personnel at BAASS (and AAWSAP?) were in 2009/2010 provided a declassified version (the "Executive summary") of the classified and exhaustive report. What does it indicate? "

Perhaps a piece of information found in an article by Joe Murgia on his site, http://www.ufojoe.net/what-dia-scientist-see-at-skinwalker, can shed some light on both the fourth and second key question in part 2 "Who made the investigation around 2009/2010 of the Nimitz UFO encounters that generated a classified version of the `Executive summary´?"

That potential helpful piece of information was given to Murgia by Dr Eric Davis during one of their online chats:
AATIP was born out of the ONI’s investigations into the Nimitz encounters with the Tic-Tac UFOs.
If I understand the statement correctly, Dr Davis is saying that the "Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program" (AATIP) is a result of the Office of Naval Investigations (ONI) exhaustive investigation of the Nimitz 2004 UFO encounters.

Dr Davis continues to say in Murgia´s article:
Synergy between AATIP and AAWSAP was discovered so the two programs began to coordinate on overlapping areas of interest.
 So we reported to Lue as far back as 2008 or 2009.
In the public story, the AAWSAP (Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program) came before AATIP. So, where does AAWSAP come into the ONI investigation (if at all)?

It seems that AAWSAP was a real DIA/DoD program, while AATIP was more of an informal project with individuals interested in the UFO phenomena from different defence departments and agencies. At least, that is what Luis Elizondo has said about AATIP on several occasions, for example, in this interview (at the 2:50 min mark) from January 30, 2018, by George Knapp. Also, listen to what Elizondo says starting at the 3:55 min mark about people inside the Pentagon not being happy with him. It may very well be one of the main reasons for the recent turnaround from the Pentagon.

So, if AAWSAP was more of a formal program than AATIP, why was not AAWSAP involved in the ONI investigation of the Nimitz encounter? Because if AAWSAP was involved, why give the personnel at Bigelow Advanced Aerospace Space Studies (BAASS) the declassified report of the investigation, the "Executive summary?"  Who helped Paco Chierici with his 2015 article about Fravor´s Tic Tac encounter by providing him with the classified report of 25-30 pages? And for what purpose?

In the interview from December 9, 2019, linked above, Chierici says that he today thinks someone on AATIP provided him with the classified report in 2015. That, together with Dr Davis´ statement that "we reported back to Lue as far back as 2008 or 2009", makes me guess the investigation that generated an exhaustive and classified report was a joint effort by ONI and AATIP. Just like Lambright does, I would like to know what year Elizondo got involved with AATIP and if he was a part of the classified investigation sometime in 2009/2010?

But more importantly, I would like to know:

  • Who were the two men back in 2004 who confiscated all the USS Nimitz UFO encounter data? And told the military personnel on board to delete other types of data? 
  • Were they from the US Air Force? How did they get there so fast after Fravor´s encounter? 
  • Were the people involved in the classified investigation in 2009/2010 (ONI and/or AATIP?) privy to some or all of the data confiscated in 2004? 
  • Or should we interpret what happened in 2004 and the investigation in 2009/2010 as two separate initiatives by two different branches, or factions,  of the military? 
  • Was Paco Chierici provided with the classified report by a faction in the military favouring confirmation and/or disclosure of the UFO phenomena?


I know all these questions are frustrating. The lack of straight answers only encourages us on the outside to come up with one speculation after the other. As I have already said, the main reason is the lack of original data. Does this lack of original data mean we should give up trying to find the data and come closer to the truth? No.

But it does mean that we have to be humble with what we think we know and careful with what we publicly can claim with certainty to be a fact. That is why I said at the beginning of this section that I do not have any answers to Lambrigth´s questions, but only more questions.

Remember, every quest for a clearer and deeper understanding starts with a relevant question. With that said, perhaps the amount of questions surrounding the themes covered in Lambright´s paper starts to be too many? Everyone has a limit for how far their patient and trust goes. However, it may also be the case that the ufo community sometimes focuses on irrelevant issues. I think it is a bit of both. The challenge is to determine which of the issues and questions are relevant to pursue.

But never make the mistake to believe that the details in a story or an event does not matter. The relevant details do matter.


My comments on Lambright´s key questions in part 4


I interpreted that Lambright has three key questions in part 4 of his paper in my overview above. There are probably more or other key questions in part 4 that the reader can discover. Anyhow, in the following, I am going to treat all of Lambright´s questions in part 4 as a question about the purpose and agenda of To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA). 

First, just like in parts 1 and 2, Lambright also raises great questions in part 4. But I believe that Lambright and I are looking at those questions from not a different mindset but a different "heart-set." I still, and despite many unanswered questions, believe that TTSA has an honest and genuine willingness to facilitate a more open conversation about the UFO phenomena and perhaps even facilitate disclosure. By the tone Lambright writes in part 4 of his paper, I get the sense that he is quite suspicious of why TTSA was created in the first place. Or, perhaps I am misreading what is between the lines? 

We should all be sound sceptics, regardless of our opinions and feelings towards TTSA and its intentions. If I have understood Lambright correctly, he seems to think that TTSA, rather than being a public benefit corporation, is a defence contractor (not unlike BAASS) with inside channels. 

I am open to that being the case. If true, what does it say about the purpose or intention of TTSA? I will come back to that question in a minute. Lambright brings up a remarkable paragraph in the CRADA between the US Army and TTSA, which I also highlighted in one of my previous posts. The paragraph, or section, of the CRADA, that both Lambright and I find intriguing is this:
C.2. Other Participants
The other contributors for this effort are:
1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) can share historical reports of
findings and origin of material solutions in the possession of the Collaborator.

As you surely remember, Luis Elizondo worked as Director, National Programs Special Management Staff, OUSD(I), before starting at TTSA and, for example, be listed in the CRADA as the "Principal Investigator" on behalf of TTSA. One of Lambright´s comments on the OSD being included in the CRADA is:
And, it definitely indicates that TTSA has some type of special arrangement sanctioned by OSD, who may have given ‘material’ to TTSA. Does that sound like a startup company with no behind-the-curtain government ties?
No, it does not sound like a startup company with no behind-the-curtain government ties. So, again, what does it mean? What is the nature of TTSA, and what is its agenda? Is it good or bad? Is the agenda to benefit a select few or the whole of humanity?

At the moment, I do not think that anyone following this whole story can answer what the nature or agenda of TTSA is with a high degree of certainty. I cannot. But I have made a conscious choice to trust that the members of TTSA have good and honest intentions in their respective hearts and mind. This, of course, does not mean that I will not keep being observant and use critical thinking when it comes to TTSA´s statements and activities (or lack thereof).

My speculation is that TTSA is backed up by a "pro-disclosure" faction in the Pentagon. I think the section in the CRADA about the OSD is an indication of that. Furthermore, I do not think Luis Elizondo and Hal Puthoff could publicly talk about UAPs in the way they have, if not someone very high up in the hierarchy of the Pentagon/DoD, gave them the permission to do so. I wrote more about it in this post in May 2019.

Another thing I thought was indicative of TTSA having "the blessings" from a faction inside the Pentagon is the statement made by Tom DeLonge in a radio show this summer about him being able to make wild claims, but not Elizondo because he has to take polygraph tests regularly. There can, of course, be a perfectly natural explanation to an ex- career counterintelligence officer having to be polygraphed regularly when working in the private sector.

We are left with the purpose and intention of TTSA. My guess is that one of TTSA´s objectives is to do what it can to make people in high official positions to take the UFO phenomena seriously and help them to take action. That is, I think TTSA is about what it has said it is about from the beginning. TTSA may very well be a confirmation and/or disclosure initiative by a faction in the US government - "disclosure by proxy" - but with the insurance of plausible deniability, as Grant Cameron often says.

However, I also think that I am missing something in the picture. Something else is going on, and I do not necessarily mean that negatively or suspiciously.

I believe everyone interested in and caring about the truth of the unfolding story must stay vigilant and use their critical thinking skills. If we are experiencing what I call a careful and selective disclosure process, we have to watch the "selective" part very carefully.

To round off my comments on Lambright´s part 4, I suspect that the recent turnaround by the Pentagon regarding the objective of AAWSAP and AATIP can be another indication that TTSA is backed up by a faction inside the Pentagon. As Elizondo says in the linked interview above by George Knapp, there are people in the Pentagon not happy with him. Many individuals both in and outside the Pentagon have a lot to lose if the disclosure process becomes more and more inevitable.

I want to end this post by making a short comment on the closing words in Lamgbrigth´s paper, "Why this matters to me (and should for all of us)." I am not so familiar with the details in the UFO case that Lambright thinks is misrepresented in one of the episodes of the History Channel documentary "Unidentified", neither have I re-watched the episode in question. Hence, I have to take Lambright´s account at face value. Which is not so difficult to do. I can feel the anger and sadness in Lambright´s writing in his closing words. He writes about the misrepresentation of the Paul Bennewitz case, and Richard Doty´s appearance in the episode is hard to argue against.

Personally, I thought it was a big mistake to have Richard Doty in the episode in question. Personally, I do not understand how any serious researcher, scientist, or corporation want anything to do with Doty.

Who made the call to represent the Bennewitz case in that manner? What was the point of having the case in the episode in the first place? I wonder what the family of Paul Bennewitz thought about how it was represented (if any family member has seen it)?

Unfortunately, I will end this post in a somewhat dull manner. Not to discourage the reader, but to use all of those important and unanswered questions as fuel, as motivation to keep exploring and discovering leads, hints, and even answers.

Who knows what we may stumble upon along the way?



Take care!
/Janne






































at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)