The Pentagon and UAPs: A small but welcome paradigm shift.

Ok. It's been more than five years since I wrote my last post on this blog! Not sure where the time went but I did start a new permanent Government job back in 2017, so was very occupied with applications prior to that. This means I had to pretty much abandon this blog whilst my time turned to much more mundane public sector matters for a while. I'm now considering (almost permanent) retirement in the next year - so maybe I'll have more time to write about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP). Who knows?

I felt compelled to write now because of the unfolding events concerning the soon to be released report into 'UAPs' (Scientific American article) and the revelations around encounters in restricted US airspace by highly-trained US navy pilots, supported by video, radar and Forward-looking Infrared (FLIR) data

I'm sure those of you with a keen interest in this will have greedily digested what information you could online about this subject which I won't repeat here (I know I have!) - but I've included a couple of useful links below.

As we get closer to the formal report's publication, I've noticed that in the last couple of weeks or so there appears to be a bit of a backlash from those who maintain that the exposure about the released videos from the US navy and the soon to be published report are part of some larger 'Psy-ops' on the part of the US military or intelligence agencies, or at the very least, some attempt by certain agencies to secure greater defence and military funding.

Whilst this can't entirely be ruled out, such counter-arguments seem weak. If there is a concerted effort to deceive the public through some 'false-flag' operation, one has to ask simply "Why?" to get as many speculative explanations in response as there are for what's behind Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. And regarding the argument for securing additional funding, there is a long, published history of the military industrial complex spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on secret or 'black' projects without apparent authorisation from any US Administration or Congress. Why should that change now?

From my perspective the buzz surrounding the report will sort of reset the clock back about 70 years - but hopefully in a good way - before the debunking exercises that were Project Blue Book and the Condon Committee Report successfully made the subject taboo and something to be ridiculed. Many commentators have already said that this new report could allow the subject of UAP to become more mainstream and be considered more seriously. 

If so at least it would be a small - but very welcome in my view - paradigm shift. We'll have to see how this pans out...

Recommended links (for those who've been living under a saucer/triangle-shaped rock the last few months):-

The Guardian

The Phenomenon (trailer)

Sixty Minutes

David Clarke and Nick Pope - For heaven's sake make up!

I see that there's been an exchange of fire between two of Britain's 'UFO experts' recently, especially coming on the heels of the final release of the MOD's UFO Files.

The Huffington Post article by Lee Speigel gives a good summary so far of these two having come to blows.

Whilst, I tend to favour Pope's view - and those of others such as Timothy Good - that these are not all the files that the relevant UK authorities possess concerning UFOs (note I'm not specifically concerned with just MOD's files here), I do wish these two would try and settle their differences.

One of the most recent salvos in this exchange was by Pope seemingly and indirectly referring to Clarke as a 'useful idiot' (which was in both the Reuters and UFOs and Nukes articles I referred to in my last post), which I thought was unkind given Clarke's work to have the MOD files released. Pope now appears to have offered an apology for his remark. It also doesn't help matters that - if certain claims being made about him are true - Pope might not have been the UFO sceptic he maintained he was before working for the MOD (the HuffPost article by Lee Speigel gives details).

As Lee says in his article:-

"If there are any losers here, it must be the public, for the confusion this has brought up. After tens of thousands of pages of UFO files have been released by the U.K., who are we supposed to believe about how significant (or not) those documents really are?"

The two protagonists - like many others in the UFO community - seem more concerned with attacking each other (and perhaps protecting their own reputations) than making a collective effort to continue to search for answers.

Despite the arguments put forward by both supporters and sceptics generally, the phenomenon of UFOs and UAP persists. Of those cases that come to light, there are still a significant number that cannot be put down to chinese lanterns, balloons, experimental aircraft, drones, meteorological or astronomical phenomena, the mental state of observers etc.

The observable universe apparently stubbonly refuses to fit into the neat world-view of either hardened sceptics or avid supporters. In addition, whilst I favour 'cock-up' or 'WYSIWYG' (What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get) rather than 'conspiracy' to explain much Government activity, it would be foolish to think that any Government is entirely 'open' or 'transparent' on a topic such as this.

Still both Clarke and Pope - whatever flaws they might be considered by some to have (including each other) - are well-known and dare I say, respected names in the field and are bolder than I (and many like me), by publicly having just such an association with the UFO phenomenon, whilst I - through necessity - must remain anonymous.

That is why I think it is important that they acknowledge their differences in a mature, gentlemanly fashion and just try to get along.

Douglas Trumbull's response concerning UFOTOG

Dear All,

I've been away...

My apologies for not posting for some time. There's no excuse for this other than my having visited family and friends during the Summer and being involved in other personal pursuits.

Douglas Trumbull's response re: UFOTOG!

I can now report however, further to my earlier posts
Still no news on UFOTOG and An open email to Douglas Trumbull about UFOTOG that - after a gentle reminder - Mr Trumbull has very kindly sent a comprehensive response to me concerning his project.

For any doubters out there I have attached the full response as a JPEG (in addition to the full text) below.

As you can see I had subsequently asked Mr Trumbull if there was any part of his response he would prefer me to exclude - but have not heard back from him so far. So Mr Trumbull - if you are reading this - I hope you will forgive me if I publish your email to me in full, as I felt I could not wait longer to share its contents with readers of this blog. In any case, I judged that there was nothing sensitive in its content that warranted exclusion or (more importantly) that Mr Trumbull would object to my   
publishing.

Note that the UFOTOG project is effectively shelved until such time as sufficient funding can be found for it. I'm sure this news will come as a disappointment to all. BUT - if anyone out there thinks they may be able to significantly financially support Mr Trumbull's project then I'm sure he'd like to hear from you!

Here is the screen capture of the email as a JPEG...

...and the full text of our latest exchange:-

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sent to me by douglashtrumbull@gmail.com - 5 September 2012 20:16 U.S. local time]

"Hi Jonathan,

I apologize, but UFOTOG is not a priority project with me right now.

To answer some of your questions:

I have invested heavily in the UFOTOG project for many years, yet have not been able to find financing to actually hit the road and do the real research. Therefore no real research has been attempted, which could require very expensive equipment and sensors, as well as a dedicated crew to work in the field for months or years. I created the UFOTOG demo film for the purpose of raising significant money to make an intensive long term study, hopefully resulting in a feature length IMAX type documentary of the REAL THING.

Whatever that is, I do not know, but what I do know is that even if we got amazing and scientifically valid, peer reviewable, data and imagery, who do you reveal it to? The police? The military? A government agency? Don't think so. But I would want people like Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku to comment on what we find.

Nevertheless, recent interest has been shown by some "reality television" producers, but they have a significant financial inability to pay for the expensive equipment needed. They only budget for the production, not the science. So I am not confident that anything will happen. Shows like UFO HUNTERS is what they want and expect, and that is of no interest to me.

There has been no data collected, thus no secret data or images to release.

I am very passionate about the project, and may feature elements of UFOTOG in some upcoming sci-fi film projects, and maybe that will spark some interest in moving the project forward with the funding required. Real science is expensive, but there may be money for fiction. Go figure.

I will not give up on this.

All the best,

Doug"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sent by me to douglashtrumbull@gmail.com - 6 September 2012 01:00 London time]

"Dear Doug,

Thank you so much for your swift and comprehensive response to my last email. Thanks too for the clarification concerning UFOTOG which I appreciate will now be shelved for the time being.

If you are happy for me to do so I would like to publish your response in my blog. If there are any parts of this email exchange you would prefer me to remove I am more than happy to do that (so long as it's not the whole exchange!).

I can empathise and understand only too well the difficulties in securing funding for research - especially where it may be the subject of controversy. For example, in my last (UK) Government role I worked in higher education policy and am wholly familiar with the challenges now faced by established universities seeking research grants in the face of dwindling Govt support.

If there is any small part I can play to assist let me know. I am attending the annual BUFORA conference in a couple of weeks and - if you like - I can spread the word about UFOTOG there - although I strongly suspect that a) most of the delegates will already know about your project and b) you'll have much better contacts than I have!

It's remotely possible that one or more of my readers - all of whom will be sympathetic to your cause - may have useful contacts or information to further assist.

I agree that in the (what currently sounds unlikely) event that sufficient funding were to be found and peer-reviewable data was gathered, respected figures in the scientific community such as Stephen Hawking or Michio Kaku would be best placed to comment on it and lend credibility to any findings of note.

Even then getting such data peer-reviewed would be a significant challenge - especially in terms of engaging a group of eminent scientists or aviation experts - whom one would want not to be strongly biased either way on the subject of UFOs or UAP.

You mention UFO Hunters. I've watched one or two online trailers and was very quickly turned off. Sensationalist programmes like this can't even get the basics right and pander to the lowest common denominator. And I don't see any change in such programming coming any time soon.

It would be a great shame if all the effort on your part to date came to naught.

But you should know that there is an increasing number of people out there who - like me - are sick and tired of all the amateur and largely faked online footage and yearn for a true professional to show us what on earth (or off-earth perhaps?) is going on in our skies.

I know if I had several million pounds/dollars in my account I'd be investing in UFOTOG but alas...

In the meantime, I wish you all the best with your other projects and hope that a ridiculously wealthy and sympathetic benefactor comes knocking on your door soon.

All the best to you too,

Jonathan"