Showing posts with label Richard Haines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Richard Haines. Show all posts

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Aguadilla UFO Video Update: FOIA Request for Government Copy Answered

Aguadilla UFO Video Update: FOIA Request for Government Copy Answered

Rain, rain & more rain

By Billy Cox
De Void
10-27-15

     Given the dramatic nature of the 2013 Aquadilla UFO footage, not to mention its subsequent forensic analysis by an independent team of researchers, De Void decided to informally query some flacks in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection office about it. The 162-page report was released online on Aug. 11, and the feds at least deserve the opportunity to tell their side of it, right? After all, they’re the ones whose thermal camera recorded the small UFO as it hurtled above a coastal residential neighborhood in Puerto Rico before breaking the waves and – according to the ad hoc Scientific Coalition for UFOlogy (SCU) investigators – averaged more than 80 mph underwater before splitting into two separate flying objects.

Once it became clear CBP wasn’t going to bite, De Void filed a Freedom of Information Act request for a government copy of that video. It was apparently leaked to researchers by Customs insiders and had been lighting up the Internet a year or so before the SCU issued its report. “It’s not like they can deny it,” says SCU co-author Robert Powell. “We’ve got radar records showing their plane in the air at that time.” Still, it seemed important to officially verify the provenance of the controversial clip. The ensuing brushoff a couple of weeks ago, slugged “Final Disposition” and tersely worded as a “full denial based on exemptions,” came as no surprise. But its crimes against coherence were abominable.

“CBP has determined,” stated the online rejection notice, “that the responsive records are partially releasable, pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C 552 and have applied the appropriate exemptions.” De Void followed that link to a list of nine itemized potential “Exemptions,” accompanied by three other separate speedbumps beneath a category called “Exclusions.” The range was eclectic; it covered everything from protecting “trade secrets” to “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Unfortunately, the verdict failed to specify exactly which “Exemption” or “Exclusion” the CBP employed to justify its rejection of De Void’s FOIA. Furthermore, whatever the censors deemed “partially releasable” is nowhere in sight.

CBP evidently located what it called a “responsive record” to De Void’s query because it admitted there was “one item found.” Beneath that little glimmer of hope were links to “Export options” via CSV/Excel formats. De Void clicked on both of those separately and in both instances got a “Stripes validation error report” header with this alleged explanation, verbatim, in toto:
Here’s how it is. Someone (quite possibly the Stripes Dispatcher) needed to get the source page resolution. But no source page was supplied in the request, and unless you override ActionBeanContext.getSourcePageResolution() you’re going to need that value. When you use a tag a hidden field called ‘_ sourcePage’ is included. If you write your own forms or links that could generate validation errors, you must include a value for this parameter. This can be done by calling request.getServletPath().
Who writes this crap? Superman rival Mr. Mxyzptlk? Pretending to be helpful, this “Final Disposition” included yet another link, to a Department of Homeland Security “FOIA Contact Information” page, with a listing for a Customs & Border Protection FOIA Officer. De Void dialed the number and listened to the recorded message urging me to pursue more online options, but if I needed to talk to a human being I should press 1. When De Void pressed 1, it disconnected the call. De Void called back twice more and got the same results – two more disconnects.

Hang on a minute – I think I feel a sneeze coming on.

Of course, this isn’t about De Void or Aguadilla. During Sunshine Week last March, the Associated Press released a study detailing the disgraceful state of America’s FOIA laws. Despite President Obama’s inauguration-day executive orders calling for more federal transparency, bureaucracies under his administration have actually set a record for censorship, with a backlog of more than 200,000 FOIA unanswered requests in 2014, up by 55 percent over 2013. In its assessment of 100 federal agencies, the AP discovered a 4 percent drop in processing public inquiries from 2013. Maybe that’s because, in 2014, government agencies received a record 714,231 FOIA requests; maybe it’s because – as the logjam kept piling higher – those same agencies pink-slipped 375 employees charged with processing FOIAs full time, or 9 percent of the workforce.

Either way, the forecast for accountability and transparency looks like rain. Which – bottom line – means De Void is thankful for receiving abstruse gibberish instead of being ignored altogether.

Monday, September 07, 2015

Experts Chime in on Puerto Rico UFO Video

By Alejandro Rojas
openminds.tv
9-4-15

     Since the release of a report analyzing a UFO video allegedly captured by a Customs and Board Patrol (CBP) aircraft using a thermal imaging camera, online UFO researchers have shared a lot of opinions. Several have come up with alternate theories. However, the few experts that have shared an opinion support the findings in the report.

The report was authored by a group of UFO researchers with backgrounds in science and technology who have posted their findings on a website called the Scientific Coalition for Ufology (SCU). You can read more about their findings in a previous story on OpenMinds.tv and in the video below.


Robert Powell, one of the authors of the report, who is also the Director of Research for the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), says the have heard from a French organization called The Aeronautical and Astronautical Association of France (3AF). They are an important mainstream organization in Europe, similar to the United State’s American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Powel says they have been impressed with the SCU’s findings, and have agreed with their conclusions.

Another expert who has offered an opinion on the report is Dr. Richard Haines, a former research scientist for NASA. He told Billy Cox of the Sarasota Herald Tribune, “For a number of reasons, I don’t believe it is a hoax. It does deserve a lot more serious study for what it may tell us about small volume, generally globular (i.e., contained), dynamic, heat-emitting resources.” [...]

Sunday, September 06, 2015

“…Investigation Of Arguably The Most Significant UFO Footage…”

“…Investigation Of Arguably The Most Significant UFO Footage…”

Boeing schmoeing, gimme Aguadilla

By Billy Cox
De Void
9-1-15

     Three weeks gone now since the release of a detailed investigation of arguably the most significant UFO footage of the modern era. Yet, not a peep about it in the mainstream press. Can you believe that? Could this be part of a pattern? Hmm.

OK, let’s just dispense with the obvious (again): When it comes to The Great Taboo, The New York Times, The Washington Post and pretty much every corporate watchdog in the Fourth Estate are reliable no-shows unless being spoonfed press release-sized pre-chewed culturally acceptable talking points. But maybe it’s unfair to single out the institutions; no mortal is immune to the evolutionary shift that is reprogramming -- right now, even as you read -- the universal attention span for minimal capacity. Who among you can hang, seriously, be honest, with a technical, 162-page multi-disciplinary analysis of a high-strangeness event– even if it was captured by an airborne government surveillance camera? But of course you'd watch the video (see below), who wouldn't? That's why one would think somebody, somewhere, might’ve broken from the mainstream flock and at least posted the footage, just for the easy bounce in traffic. It’s not every day we get a chance to see a taxpayer-financed video of a UFO outperforming our coolest toys.


On Aug. 19, a week or so after the Aguadilla news broke, Forbes magazine announced how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had approved back in April Boeing’s design of a “transformer-like process for converting the drone into a small submersible vehicle when it hits the water.” Superficially, it sounds a lot like what happened over Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, on the evening of 4/25/13. That’s when a Customs and Border Protection plane tracked the night-flying UFO with thermal imaging and recorded about two minutes' worth of action. Hurtling erratically along at anywhere from 40 to 120 mph, no transponder, and apparently forcing the 16-minute delay of a FedEx flight due to its proximity to a local airport, the gizmo went for a shallow dip in the Caribbean -- and averaged 82.8 mph. Underwater. Nearly twice the speed of most submarines and torpedoes.

Boeing’s designs on developing a “rapid deployment air and water vehicle” for the U.S. Navy include wings, stabilizers and propellers while aloft, and detachable components in its submersible configuration. But those sleek schematics on paper don't much resemble the vaguely spheroid, boxy-looking amorphous thingamajig that buzzed commercial/residential landscapes in Puerto Rico. And, unfortunately for Boeing, the plans it submitted to the USPTO don’t call for its Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) to split apart as it emerges from the water to become two separate flying vehicles. Looks like whoever invented the Aguadilla UFO beat Boeing to that nifty trick at least two years ago. That’s got to be a bummer, because the team that studied the Customs and Border Protection video -- they call themselves the Scientific Coalition for Ufology -- could detect no means whatsoever of propulsion for the UUV.

So guess what? If I’m the Navy brass, I’m saying Look, guys, China's working on supercavitation technology that can propel a sub at the speed of sound, so screw the Boeing specs, give me one of those Aguadilla UUVs so I can double my coverage and beat the snot out of anything that tries to chase me in the water. Fortunately for all parties, the media is keeping its distance from this one, so nobody has to get embarrassed or agitated in a public manner.

In the meantime, with or without the press, with or without institutional science, research on this curiosity continues. Here’s a radar rehash of that event, conceived and posted by UK researcher Rob Jeffs. Because no radar pingbacks registered on the UFO – too small? below the coverage? stealth? – its precise location during the sequence is inferred by the CBP plane's flight pattern. Jeffs' narration is self-explanatory, and it’s worth a look:


“It’s intriguing because the video appears to show some interaction with the water, which would place the object at ground level – at least at the end of the sequence,” adds Jeffs in an email. “But it’s also frustrating because while the video provides information that a UFO case wouldn’t usually include, it also raises additional questions, for instance, how the infrared camera operates.”

Bingo. If only. SCU team member Larry Cates is a mathematician with a background in systems analysis and hardware development. He got hooked on the UFO mystery after studying MUFON's radar post-mortem on the 2008 Stephenville incident. Among other things, Cates fired off FOIA radar requests for SCU, shortly after the footage was leaked, apparently by a federal employee, in 2013.

“There’s still more analysis to be done. For instance, most of us were pretty naïve about infrared when we started this project two years ago, trying to figure out what’s normal in an infrared video." That path ended at the gates of the technology that acquired the UFO footage -- Wescam MX-15D's thermal optics. “We went through a learning curve and then we bumped up against trade secrets and need-to-know issues.”

So imagine if NASA or NOAA or any government agency other than DoD brought transparently funded curiosity to bear on Aguadilla. Imagine if they issued press releases to The Times or The Post or NPR or Amy Goodman or Dr. Sanjay Gupta or Jimmy Fallon or take your pick, and gave them all permission to cover the story.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Aguadilla UFO Video: "... We’ve Got Infrared ... We’ve Got Radar ..."

 
 
Bookmark and Share

Aquadilla UFO Video: "... We’ve Got Infrared ... We’ve Got Radar ..."



Indifference or dereliction?

By Billy Cox
De Void
8-19-15

     What if – just for the sheer counterintuitive hell of it – “the government” isn’t even interested in UFOs? Or at least, not lately?

Last week, a group of researchers calling themselves the Scientific Coalition of Ufology released its potentially game-changing, 162-page analysis of a 2013 UFO event over Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. What set this incident apart from so much common dreck was the apparent source of the videotape – U.S. Customs and Border Protection, under the Department of Homeland Security. This is an impressive pedigree, maybe even a gold standard. And flightstats.com independently confirmed an insider’s contention that a Fed Ex flight was, indeed, delayed for departure by 16 minutes as the UFO, sans transponder, buzzed nearby Rafael Hernandez Airport.

That last detail put the hook in Dr. Richard Haines, former research scientist with NASA-Ames and founder of the non-profit National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena. Since 1999, Haines and NARCAP have assessed and published trends on the potentially catastrophic impact of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) on air traffic safety, at home and abroad. Given the extraordinary clarity of the Aguadilla video, coupled with the fact that the name-protected whistleblower who leaked the footage appears to be a federal employee, Haines took an arm’s-length approach when he was contacted about the images in 2013.

“Given sufficient motivation, manpower and money, one could create a very realistic hoax here,” Haines conceded in an email to De Void. “However, for a number of reasons, I don’t believe it is a hoax. It does deserve a lot more serious study for what it may tell us about small volume, generally globular (i.e., contained), dynamic, heat-emitting resources.”

Still, Haines’ main reservations weren’t over authenticity. His foremost concern was whether or not the footage involved classified material. After all, if this is what it appears to be – i.e., a single flying object, averaging 80 mph after plowing into the ocean, then splitting into two separate flying objects as it emerged from the water – it seems pretty obvious that a federal agency has documented evidence of some extraordinary technology. If it’s one of ours, is this how Uncle Sam would want to put the word out there? Via UFO researchers? Really? And if it’s stealthy hardware from, say China, would we want them to know we know?

“[Restricted access] has still not been determined by anyone as far as I know,” states Haines, “and that is one of the reasons we (NARCAP) did not proceed with any more than a cursory examination of the video long ago when we first learned of it. We wanted to (and still want to) play by the rules, so to speak, in this regard considering that it might have been classified information.”

But if Morgan Beall’s confidential source is correct, the bureaucrats just don't give a spit.

“According to our witness,” says Beall, the Florida State MUFON director who coordinated the investigation, “Air Force intelligence kicked it back down, said ‘We don’t know what it is,’ and said to call the 800 number of a civilian research organization. Actually there are two to three witnesses, and when there didn’t appear to be any interest from the upper echelon, their attitude was, well, does that mean we’re free to talk about it? And that’s when the leaks started.

“We’ve all heard stories about eyewitnesses being threatened and told to keep quiet or else. But those are largely historical cases, and from the ‘90s onward we’re not hearing that from anybody at all. And I think that’s probably a smarter way to handle it, just deny you’re interested.”

SCU team investigator Richard Hoffman suspects the Aguadilla video trickled into the public domain as “more of a mess-up than anything else.” An IT engineer contracting with U.S. Army Materiel Command at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Ala., Hoffman blames the leak on a “lack of clear guidance” on what to do with UFO reports that might emanate from government agencies. Unlike a number of South American and European nations, the U.S. has had no official institutional system for processing UFO data since 1970. “Whether it was passed up the chain of command or if it just stayed with Customs, I don’t know,” he says. “My concern is that someone with DHS is going to spank someone from Customs for letting it get out there.”

A student of the phenomena since he was a teenager growing up in Ohio, Hoffman says he’s been waiting a lifetime for evidence of this caliber to emerge. He once interviewed an Air Force pilot who told him he shot gun-camera footage in pursuit of a UFO, only to have it confiscated and vanish down a black hole. Now, it’s as if Customs and Border Protection just delivered the goods on a silver platter.

“I’m almost doing pole vaults, I’m so excited about it,” says Hoffman. “There’s never been a single case that's been so thoroughly studied. In two and a half minutes, we have an object that breaks two laws of physics. And we’ve got infrared video, we’ve got radar, we’ve got the kind of technology and built-in metrics you just can’t get from eyewitnesses alone. We've done the science, we've done the math. We've posted it, and we want more input."

So did Customs screw up? Or DHS? Or could it be that administrators at either agency really don’t care that on the evening of April 25, 2013, a state-of-the-art airborne camera did its job and gathered evidence of a flying machine demonstrating unprecedented performance capabilities?

Saturday, May 16, 2015

'...NARCAP From Its Inception Ditched The UFO Acronym...'

'...NARCAP From Its Inception Ditched The UFO Acronym...'

Broccoli or smores? Hmm ...


By Billy Cox
De Void
5-15-15

      OK, let’s face it, nothing competes with dead space aliens when it comes to creating orgasmic worldwide hype. And when the pyrite that tried to pass for bullion dissolved into snake oil during last week’s “Roswell Slides” calamity in Mexico City, there were plenty of critics quick to point to the hogslop as the industry standard for evidence attending The Great Taboo. So now might be a good time to step back and revisit the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena website, which would probably do somersaults if it could get even a fraction of the attention provoked by the clumsy mummy farce.

On April 10, without any fanfare (no dead aliens/visuals = no buzz), NARCAP executive director Ted Roe issued a status report on the non-profit’s ongoing research, at home and abroad, since 1999. And just for reference, stunts like the "Roswell Slides" have so poisoned the well for inquisitive fence-sitters, NARCAP from its inception ditched the UFO acronym altogether for the more neutral unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP. Either way, institutional American attitudes continue to stagnate despite NARCAP's attempt to frame the mystery as a potential flight safety issue.

“Data regarding aviation related UAP observations and incidents flows away from the aviation system and is not examined for safety factors by US aviation authorities, the NTSB, etc.,” writes Roe. “In fact, the FAA refers pilots and air traffic controllers that want to make a UAP or ‘UFO’ report to contact civilian UFO research groups and private businesses. These organizations have not published a single study nor demonstrated the slightest concern for the matter of UAP and aviation safety.”

Led by retired NASA scientist Richard Haines, NARCAP’s multi-disciplinary, multi-national contributors labor thanklessly to educate (mostly) pilots on the potential hazards of close encounters, which have never gone away despite nearly a half century of wishful thinking from the University of Colorado and the U.S. Air Force. As technical work, this is forbidding stuff, dense with physics and geometry, largely inaccessible to general audiences and most assuredly not for the sound bites that pass for journalism these days.

Take a single report from 2010, Project Sphere, which attempted to get a better grip on those elusive white blips and metallic-looking orbs that have, for decades, been photographed and detected on radar. Fifteen contributors weighed in -- from Spain, Canada, France, the U.K., Brazil and Japan, joining American scientists like NASA engineer Lawrence Lemke (his chapter: “Aerodynamics of Spheres”) and Richard Spalding from Sandia National Laboratories (“An Atmospheric Electrical Hypothesis for Spherical Luminosities Occurring at Aircraft Altitudes”).

Properly circumspect, NARCAP declined to hang a label on this puzzle, but felt secure enough in its data to make seven recommendations, including the integration of UAP characteristics into flight-simulator training, alongside more conventional variables like wind shear and bird collisions. If knowledge alone wasn’t a sufficient motivator, perhaps the threat of liability could make the case.

“If UAP are judged to be naturally occurring so-called acts of God ...” wrote Haines in the report’s conclusion, “then airlines have less to fear in terms of litigation. If, on the other hand, UAP are discovered to be intelligently controlled or otherwise artificial, then a quite different legal judgement could be made, one whose outcome could only be guessed at. It makes good sense, then, that we should try to discover the core nature of UAP sooner than later if, for no other reason, (than) to obviate some of these problems that are associated with aviation accident litigation.”

Not even a shrug, of course, from U.S. authorities. But in his blogpost, Roe reminds us of how the rest of the world has made adjustments to The Great Taboo since Uncle Sam bailed in 1969, e.g., the rise of government studies sweeping South America, the expansion of NARCAP’s links into Chile, Germany and Mexico, even a concession from the British Ministry of Defence — which proclaims itself officially disinterested in these matters — “that UAP exist is indisputable… and they (UAP) are probably a threat to safe aviation.”

NARCAP’s work should be news. If only it could find some dead alien mummy pix. . . .

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

‘…We Need an International [UFO] Data Clearinghouse…’ says Retired NASA Scientist

Bookmark and Share

‘…We Need an International -UFO- Data Clearinghouse…’ says Retired NASA Scientist

Where is the USA?


By Billy Cox
De Void
3-19-15

     In July 2014, some four months before France and Chile held their historic meeting to collaborate on UFO research, the founder of the non-profit National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena made a compelling case in Paris for standardizing procedures. Last month, NARCAP’s website posted this video (see below) of Dr. Richard Haines’ 25-minute pitch, and it’s definitely worth a look. “The emphasis on methodology is essential,” the retired NASA scientist told his audience, “and we should’ve been doing this 20 years ago.”


Better late than never. NARCAP is an online sanctuary where pilots — usually American, but not always — can report in-flight encounters with what it calls unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), openly and anonymously, without fear of professional repercussions. Over the past 16 years, NARCAP, which networks with researchers in more than a dozen countries, has compiled a database with sobering implications for air traffic safety. Haines stressed the importance of getting the witnesses to re-enact those events as authentically as possible, all the way down to putting those participants back in the cockpit or, failing that, into simulators. Protocols involve producing sketches of UAP flight patterns in relation to windows and instrumentation panels, backed up with whatever radar data may exist, for plotting triangulation. The system calls for separate interviews with pilot, co-pilot, air traffic control when available, and then reuniting the witnesses for a collective near real-time walk-through. This is the “validation phase,” where discrepancies in memory, data, and perception can surface.

Among the most riveting “black swan” events in Haines’ presentation (“black swan” because they’re so rare and unforgettable) was the 1996 flight of a DC-10 outside LAX around 2 a.m. This one involved a barbell-shaped configuration of lights that initially appeared on a collision course with the cargo plane. “He could not believe his eyes,” said Haines, describing how the pilot repositioned and braced for impact. “He thought it was the oncoming landing lights of another jet plane, and he had about three seconds to live, that’s how frightening it was.”

The UAP accelerated horizontally and didn’t even leave radar tracks, which raises yet another obstacle. “I’m not convinced radar is going to solve our problem because of stealth and other concerns,” Haines said. Consequently, analytical tools should include not merely onboard radar and ground-sensing stations, but readily available resources such as satellite technology and real-time environmental/meteorological data, some as infinitely detailed as ultraviolet ray indexes and magnetic field distribution. “This level of information is unprecedented, we’ve never had this before,” Haines said. “It’s extremely valuable in reconstructing near-earth events.”

“I’m suggesting,” he went on, “that methodology from a conceptual point of view should be like a fisherman’s net. And that should be a very large net to catch lots of fish, if you will, but the weave of the net should be very small ... It must be creatively planned. It must include both psychological and physiological and sociological data as well as physical hard-science data — don’t leave that out, it’s extremely important.”

Finally, when it comes to government transparency on UAP records, Haines lauded France’s “more open posture than we have ... in America, and we’re still fighting that uphill battle.” In fact, speaking of America, just this week an Associated Press analysis of federal compliance with sunshine laws indicated record rates for denying or censoring FOIA requests over the past year. Which means that any insights into The Great Taboo will likely be forged without Uncle Sam.

Still, Haines was optimistic. “We need an international data clearinghouse where we can truly share data across cultural bounds, across national boundaries,” he added in a nod to the half a dozen or so South American governments now openly building UAP files. “Of course, military classification issues become a problem there, we understand that. But there’s a great deal of open data — open, free, scientific data — that we can have access to.”

Well, at least for now.

Friday, January 30, 2015

“UAP [UFOs] Maneuverability Makes … Drones Look Archaic”

Drones vs UFOs

The new scapegoats?

By Billy Cox
De Void
1-27-15

     The quadcopter drone that crashed into the White House lawn on Monday may have been innocuous, but at some point there’s going to be a disaster — and everybody sees it coming. The global skies are getting more cluttered by unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) morphing into increasingly bizarre and complex designs, and regulators can’t scramble fast enough to keep up with the galloping technologies, many of which now employ stealth configurations.

In November, The Washington Post reviewed FAA records and discovered pilots had reported “a surge” of near-miss incidents since June 1, where drones came within a few feet or seconds of colliding with conventional aircraft. In an environment where the odds of potentially catastrophic encounters are accelerating, could an unintended consequence be getting more critical eyes on UFOs?

Drone Survival Guide
Credit: dronesurvivalguide.org
Since 1999, the nonprofit National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena has been studying The Great Taboo — preferring the less loaded acronym UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena) — from flight-safety perspectives. NARCAP’s concerns aren’t so much over mid-air collisions — UAP apparently don’t obey the laws of traditional aerodynamics and are agile enough to turn on a dime — as they are about pilot reaction. NARCAP researchers scoured FAA cases dating back to the 1950s and discovered the biggest danger was a tendency by pilots to overcorrect when confronted by the often abrupt approach of UAP. No fatalities on file, yet, but a few injuries here and there, and certainly a potential for disaster anytime a pilot attempts a sudden evasive maneuver.

Inject drones into that lengthy FAA track record and things get dicey real quick. In a 2013 report titled “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Unidentified Aerial Phenomena: Can We Tell Them Apart?,” NARCAP’s Richard Haines and Wayne Reed drew distinctions between UAP and UAV. To mention a few, drones can be pretty noisy; UAP are largely mute. Unlike UAV, most drones have range, altitude and speed limitations. UAP maneuverability makes even the most sophisticated drones look archaic. “Unless something basic has been overlooked in this overview,” states the report, “it seems reasonable to assert that none of the UAV that are reviewed here are able to disappear suddenly from sight, execute instantaneous ninety degree (or other angles) turns, accelerate at extremely high speeds, hover in complete silence or perform small, constant radius somersaults or corkscrew flight around a single point, suddenly change shape or size (without changing their orientation or distance from the viewer) — all of which UAP have been reported to be able to do.”

NARCAP published yet another example just this month, from Australian researchers Keith Basterfield and Paul Dean. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), described it as “a near collision with an unknown object involving a De Havilland DHC-8, VH-XFX near Perth Airport, Western Australia on 19 March 2014,” and filed it under the “serious incident” category. The charter turboprop had 53 passengers aboard that clear morning when it was confronted by an “unknown object” that, according to the crew, was coming head-on and sported “a bright strobe light” up front that “appeared to track” toward the DHC-8. The pilot had to bank the avoid the collision with the bogey, which passed within 65 feet horizontally and 100 feet vertically.

A strobing light amid clean skies was weird enough, but the ATSB report, which also said the object left no radar tracks, logged it as “cylindrical in shape and grey in colour.” But get this: The DHC-8 was traveling at 3,700 feet; at the moment of the encounter, according to the ATSB, the area below 3,500 feet was restricted military airspace. Upon being interviewed by Paul Dean, the chief pilot said the object was shaped like a cigarette, only “it was green, military green, in colour.”

The pilot informed Dean nobody told him to shut up about what he saw. But after that interview, which was conducted through the airline, Dean’s access to the pilot, and to the safety officer he hoped to question, went dark. “No more emails, no more return calls,” Dean writes. “It was like they'd either had enough of the case, or, were told not to keep discussing it.

“I wonder of course, if it was a missile or rocket, where the body of it is,” he continues. “If it was a UAV then we have to wonder what type?! I looked and looked and no UAVs are pencil-like, all green-grey, or have a strobe at the front. It's weird. Whatever it was it nearly took that plane out.”

Just one more thing we'll likely never figure out. But what if drone technology -- military or otherwise -- begins to seriously imperil our skyways? Might authorities start chatting up UFOs as a cover for their mistakes?

Friday, November 14, 2014

Noted Roswell Researcher Talks of 'Smoking Gun Evidence' at University Forum

Bookmark and Share

UFO Experts Say 'We Are Not Alone'

UFO experts say 'we are not alone'

By Michelle Basch
www.wtop.com
11-13-14


"one of the speakers used the occasion to reveal evidence he called a 'smoking gun.'"

      WASHINGTON -- UFOs were the topic of a panel discussion Wednesday night at American University, and one of the speakers used the occasion to reveal evidence he called a "smoking gun."

"We have come into possession of a couple of Kodachrome color slides of an alien being lying in a glass case," author and researcher Thomas Carey told the near-capacity crowd in Abramson Recital Hall.

He's been researching the 1947 Roswell incident since 1991.

"What's interesting is, the film is dated 1947. We took it to the official historian of Kodak up in Rochester, New York, and he did his due diligence on it, and he said yes, this filmstrip, the slides are from 1947. It's 1947 stock. And from the emulsions on the image, it's not something that's been Photoshopped like today. It's original 1947 images, and it shows an alien who's been partially dissected lying in a case."

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

“How Often Does An Honors Class Take A Serious Look At UFOS?"

Bookmark and Share

American University Panel - UFOs, Encounters by Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials


A crack in the wall

By Billy Cox
De Void
11-11-14

     Hate to keep working a plowed field, but today we need to revisit the seminal “Sovereignty and the UFO” essay in the journal of Political Theory. That's because of what's happening tomorrow in Washington, D.C.

The "Sovereignty" piece, penned by political scientists Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall in 2008, laid out a theory for why America’s higher-learning institutions were incapable of entertaining serious debates on The Great Taboo. The disconnect was more political than scientific, and the result, they argued, was intellectual poverty on a broad scale.

“If academics’ first responsibility is to tell the truth,” they declared, “then the truth is that after sixty years of modern UFOs, human beings still have no idea what they are, and are not even trying to find out. That should surprise and disturb us all, and cast doubt on the structure of rule that requires and sustains it.”

At American University, international relations professor Patrick Jackson, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education at the School of International Service, is not only familiar with the Wendt/Duvall piece, he sympathizes with major portions of it. “Science is the excitement of not knowing. I’d like to think we want our students to think more broadly than to simply reproduce in some form or fashion the same old idea they’ve heard all their lives,” says Jackson. “I mean, what is tenure if not to explore what Nietzche called untimely thoughts?”

Accordingly, on Wednesday, Jackson has volunteered to sub for PBS science reporter Miles O’Brien (scheduling conflict) and moderate AU’s three-hour panel discussion “UFOs: Encounters by Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials.” This is a free public event extending from an honors colloquium taught by cinema professor John Weiskopf. The lineup includes USAF veteran Charles Halt (the Bentwaters incident), retired NASA scientist Richard Haines (National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena founder), Roswell investigator Thomas Carey, and New York Times bestselling author Leslie Kean (UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record).

This is a big deal. Although increasing numbers of institutions are warming to the idea of sponsoring discussions about extraterrestrial intelligence, the SETI model — ETs are just like us, playing around with radio signals while conveniently stranded on some cosmic island far, far away — is about as far as they’ll typically extend their necks. Wednesday’s roundtable is different.

“How often does an honors class take a serious look at UFOs? John Weiskopf is to be commended for making this happen,” states Kean. “American University is breaking ground here which could help encourage other universities to do the same. Many people and departments at AU are rallying around this event and they all take the subject seriously. I hope this will pave the way for the academic community to become more objective and rational about this subject.”

To be sure, cautions Jackson, the classroom bridge into this exotic realm is built on the foundation of science fiction in popular culture. But it’s also a novel way of introducing students to AU’s School of International Service, one of the top-ranked foreign studies programs in the country.

“What are international relations about if not an encounter with ‘the other’ in some way? In this case, it would the alien,” says Jackson, who has yet to be convinced the evidence supports the ET premise. “If you look at Star Trek, whether it’s Klingons they’re dealing with or the Federation, it’s all international politics. What we want to do is stimulate intellectual creativity and promote robust discussion, not to shut it down by saying it’s prima facie absurd.”

Could a successful AU symposium signal to other universities that it’s OK to hold UFO forums without getting the cooties? “I could imagine a pathway,” Jackson says. “But let’s hold this forum and see what happens.”

Friday, October 24, 2014

'Miles O'Brien is Out' as Moderator of UFO Panel

Bookmark and Share

Miles O'Brien is Out as Moderator of UFO Panel

Don't hold your breath


By Billy Cox
De Void
10-23-14

     Bad news for the Nov. 12 “UFOs: Encounters by Generals, Pilots and Government Officials” conference at American University — Miles O’Brien is out.

“I’ve had to cancel my participation in this event because of another assignment,” the PBS science correspondent and former CNN anchor stated in an email to De Void. “I have no problem addressing this issue and have done so publicly in the past. And I intend to in the future. I’m just too busy right now.”

Drat.

John Weiskopf, the AU film professor who’s sponsoring the panel discussion, hasn’t settled on a replacement, but “we are working on it,” he writes. “It will be somebody good.”

If only. You'd stand a better chance of starting a turtle feather collection than of booking a blue-chip mainstream journalist who knows beans about The Great Taboo. About the only sure-fire things that pass for UFO coverage these days are breezy little blurbs about ambiguous images in the night sky. Here’s the latest and, swear to god, when I first read about this one it sounded so familiar I thought they were flogging the same dead horse from August.

A smudgy image appeared off the ISS during a spacewalk on Oct. 7, as two astronauts attempted to recover a kaput cooling pump. When the sequence was uploaded to YouTube last week, the “alien spacecraft” speculation began, predictable as flies on slop. There were diverse culprits like the San Jose Mercury News, which did zero digging but managed to post a quickie, headlined “Video: Did a UFO photobomb a NASA space video?” Ultimately, given the UFO’s perfect synchronization with the ISS movements, sources quoted by the UK tabloid Daily Mail (the only outlet to bother with picking up a phone) attributed the mystery to either lens flare or a camera artifact.

Missing from this mix, of course, was any feedback at all from NASA, which failed to reply to The Mail’s queries. The space agency, which has traditionally done a lousy job of promoting its assets, also declined comment on a carbon-copy incident back in August. They have their reasons. NASA could probably staff an entire UFO hotline desk to explain lens flare and camera artifacts and it still wouldn’t make any difference. People will see what they want to see.

Still, there’s a vacuum here, and it’s the reason we need informed, persistent, and open-minded reporting — not doctrinaire pseudo-skepticism — to run interference. Despite the mindless clutter, weird things do happen, in space and closer to the ground. Finding journalists smart and inquisitive enough to know the difference is a virtual fool’s errand these days. Good luck, John Weiskopf.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Journalist, Miles O'Brien To Moderate UFO Panel at American University | VIDEO

Bookmark and Share

Journalist, Miles O'Brien To Moderate UFO Panel at American University

Inching slowly into the future


By Billy Cox
De Void
10-16-14

      You feel it? A subtle shift in the weather, maybe?

Two weeks ago, it happened again at Harvard University, where American-Israeli theoretical physicist Avi Loeb went on a 90-minute power-point jag titled “New Search Methods for Primitive and Intelligent Life Far from Earth.” Loeb’s presentation was a familiar rehash of a forum late last month at yet another staid institutional venue, the Library of Congress. Those guys devoted an entire two days to the same theme, “Preparing for Discovery: A Rational Approach to the Impact of Finding Microbial, Complex, or Intelligent Life Beyond Earth.” And this came just four months after a House subcommittee listened to a couple of SETI radioastronomers lobby for a resumption of funding to scan the cosmos for extraterrestrial radio signals.

Obviously this isn't happening in a vacuum. There's an unending windfall of extrasolar planets — 4,875 logged at last count, 1,516 of those definitely confirmed — under scrutiny now in the Exoplanet Data Explorer’s burgeoning archives. Nowhere amid any of this lively badinage can these experts find any space for the 800-pound UFO gorilla so rigorously ignored by Conventional Wisdom. But hello, what’s this? Look what’s coming up at American University in Washington on Nov. 12 — a three-hour panel discussion called “UFOs: Encounters by Generals, Pilots and Government Officials.” And it’s an extension of an AU honors course — “Alien Contact: Science and Science Fiction,” taught by filmmaker/prof John Weiskopf.


We’ve seen variations of this presentation before, based as it is on Leslie Kean’s bestseller UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record.Kean will be there, alongside retired NASA scientist Richard Haines and former USAF colonel Charles Halt. A nice twist is how the panel will be moderated by one of the brighter minds in the newsbiz, Miles O’Brien. A licensed pilot and award-winning journo, O’Brien wore several hats at CNN, including morning anchor and science/aerospace reporter. After management laid him off in real dumb move in December 2008, he went on to freelance for the likes of PBS, Discovery Science, and the National Science Foundation. To its credit, CNN recently brought him back to report on aviation.

Immediately after the layoff six years ago, there was considerable paranoid cyberchatter about the five-part “In Search of Aliens” series he’d just filed for CNN, and about how it probably cost O’Brien his job. That was BS, of course, because there was no real groundbreaking in his reporting. In fact, one could easily argue he tried to do so much with so many topics, the whole presentation felt formulaic. A followup on MUFON’s exhaustive radar analysis of the Stephenville UFO earlier in 2008, for instance, would've made him the first mainstream network reporter to explore this hugely embarrassing PR disaster for the Air Force. But, alas, no mention of the data on CNN. Still, the fact that O’Brien chose to address The Great Taboo at all was a significant departure from the corporate apathy — or timidity — that too often characterizes prevailing attitudes.

And one other departure of note: AU’s Weiskopf also decided to put Roswell on the docket. Overexposed and overhyped to the point of stigma, the 1947 Roswell Incident has been avoided by a lot of researchers lately. But Thomas Carey, co-author of 2009’s Witness To Roswell, has been invited to attend.

"I was actually surprised -- it's quite an honor to be selected for this panel," says Carey, who's been researching and writing about the controversy for more than 20 years. "I'm looking forward to some good, tough questions and I'd hope people would come away with an appreciation for the fact that the Air Force spin on Roswell is absolutely ludicrous."

At any rate, the exoplanets keep stacking up. Verification of wet, Earth-like habitats millions or even billions of years older than our own is a matter of time. And so is, inevitably, a responsible and ongoing conversation about The Great Taboo. Someday, our descendents will look back and wonder what the hell we were so afraid of.