Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Secret Pentagon research projects revealed


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

As per usual, just the typical, "no, it never happened". Uh huh. I'll choose to believe people who actually have some experience in certain areas. I've been in the military too, as you know - there are many, many, specialized aspects and operations within all the military branches. 

So, the truth is, these gentlemen experienced things, saw things - and you didn't. Their quotes stand.

Where is your proof that it did happen? Not anecdotal statements, I mean something observable or testable.

Ok, so what was your area of expertise? What did you experience or witness that makes you think this?

I have been in the US Army for over 24 years now. The majority of it bein Military police pulling site security on some very sensitive and classified sites. I have also been part of asset recovery missions  for test projects. with nothing to show for alien contact. Not one thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

No misquoting, try it from someone who was there:

 

So this muddled and meandering account is what you present?:lol: "He said this, and I asked that to which he asked me a question"... Are you having a laugh? Yes he was there, as an attendee to a conference where someone was nebulous at best with explanations to ridiculous claims. Not a witness to any sort of equipment tested. Insert  25 cents to try again...….

I unfortunately can not state my site assignments as site security personnel. I can say I have been allowed to witness highly classified equipment tested. None of which are alien in nature.

6. They want it to be true. Finally, the liar might want their lie to be true so badly that their desire and needs again overwhelm their instinct to tell the truth. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” Gandhi never actually said. But sometimes, liars hope that they can make something come true by saying it over and over, and by believing it as hard as they can.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201701/6-reasons-people-lie-when-they-don-t-need

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Scudbuster said:

No misquoting, try it from someone who was there:

** snipped video **

 

This is exacty the misquoted nonsense that I posted about in the links. I listened to this rather twisted version of what happened.

Did you read the links I posted that provided the corrected version of events?

or example, the black disk slide he refers to to was wrong. It was a silver disk.All you've done is confirm how poor eyewitnesses are.

https://noriohayakawa.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/ben-rich-erroneously-misquoted-by-the-ufo-community/

Quote

Ben Rich is constantly misquoted as saying “We now have the technology to take E.T home.” That is not what he said.

 

Also read this so you can find out what your bad video got wrong.

http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2014/10/ben-rich-area-51-taking-et-home.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is ridiculous when we point out that Scudbuster is using sources that lie about what good people like Ben Rich stated in other to fool people about UFOs.

Out come the quotes and no references to where this tripe came from. The quotes posted about Ben Rich are lies. It is polite to call them misquotes, but they are lies. These lies cloud the issue and do so on purpose.

Was the person in the video wittingly or unwittingly repeating the lies? I am asking if they are part of the problem or was their memory of a speech tainted years later by lies?

An indicator of this being just lies is that Ben Rich gave the same presentation many places with the same slides. Yet, in one place people are suggesting he went off script for a long time.

Some people are so close minded in the issue they seem unwilling to accept that Ben Rich  is purposely being misquoted (or lied abut) to further an agenda of cash collecting. That is what MUFON does today. They collect cash. They gave up on their idea of UFO investigating a long time ago.

Quote

There are several compendium web sites where all these reside, I tried to identify some of particular significance, so here's a few more

Please provide links for these quotes so we have the chance at catching more of these as being lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's begin with this LIE posted by Scudbuster. It is an out an out lie. It is designed to confuse and is designed to make the gullible fall for the stories posted on the sites that promote this LIE.

Quote

"The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating even higher than the H Bomb.  Flying saucers exist.  Their Modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush." – Wilbert Smith (in a top secret Canadian Government Memorandum, November 21, 1950)

There is the supposed quote. So who was Wilbert Smith. He was a radio engineer. He worked for the Canadian government. He want doing studies at the time that were classified top secret. This comes from one of his reports.

I actually found the original source and here is the relevant portion.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2012/02/wilbert-smith-and-project-magnet.html

Quote
While in Washington attending the NARB Conference, two books were released one titled "Behind the Flying Saucer" by Frank Scully, and the other "The Flying Saucers are Real" by Donald Keyhoe. Both books dealt mostly with the sightings of unidentified objects and both books claim that flying objects were of extra-terrestrial origin and might well be space ships from another planet. Scully claimed that the preliminary studies of one saucer which fell into the hands of the United States Government indicated that they operated on some hitherto unknown magnetic pinciples. It appeared to me that our own work in geo-magnetics might well be the linkage between our technology and the technology by which the saucers are designed and operated. If it is assumed that our geo-magnetic investigations are in the right direction, the theory of operation of the saucers becomes quite straightforward, with all observed features explained qualitatively and quantitatively.

 

I made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy staff in Washington who were able to obtain for me the following information:
 
a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.
 
b. Flying saucers exist.
 
c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.
 
d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.

 

I was further informed that the United States authorities are investigating along quite a number of lines which might possibly be related to the saucers such as mental phenomena and I gather that they are not doing too well since they indicated that if Canada is doing anything at all in geo-magnetics they would welcome a discussion with suitably accredited Canadians.

Is Wilbert Smith saying flying saucers exist? NO. He is saying that some unknown person stated that,He states that there is someone in the US looking into the matter.

Here is what the link has to say about the document

Quote

In other words, it is interesting, but it doesn’t provide the evidence of either flying saucers or government cover ups. It is a document composed of rumor without foundation, and unfortunately, that is all that can be said for it.

Second purposeful misrepresentation down. More to go.

Scudbuster, which dubious lying site are you using to get these fake quotes?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On to the next quote.

Quote

"The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.” General Nathan Twining, Chairman, Joints Chiefs of Staff Sept. 23, 1947. 

I enlarged and bolded the quote a la Scudbuster.

So here is a ink to someone taking the time to understand the context of the letter. It basically states that the person that also stated there was no debris at Roswell wants people to look into the flying disk stories and not dismiss them out of hand.

http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2016/04/twining-vs-roswell.html

So where does this memo requesting an investigation lead?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/15/arts/television/project-blue-book-history-true-story.html

Quote

It all began in 1947. Lt. General Nathan Twining, the commander of Air Materiel Command, sent a secret memo on “Flying Discs” to the commanding general of the Army Air Forces at the Pentagon. Twining stated that “the phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.” The silent, disc-like objects demonstrated “extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and motion which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar.”

A new project, code-named “Sign,” based at Wright Field (now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base) outside Dayton, Ohio, was given the mandate to collect U.F.O. reports and assess whether the phenomenon was a threat to national security. With Russia ruled out as the source, the staff wrote a top secret “Estimate of the Situation,” concluding that, based on the evidence, U.F.O.s most likely had an interplanetary origin.

According to government officials at the time, the estimate was rejected by General Hoyt Vandenberg, the Air Force chief of staff. From then on, the proponents of the off-planet hypothesis lost ground, with Vandenberg and others insisting that conventional explanations be found.

Project Sign eventually evolved into Project Blue Book, with the aim of convincing the public that flying saucers could be explained.

Does the memo suggest UFOs are confirmed? No. It means that i the beginning of the government inquiry.

Here is what Scudbuster claimed about these quotes: "So, the bottom line is, these quotes from Ben Rich and other various highly accomplished individuals completely establishes the fact that we have been - and are probably still - being visited."

As we can all see these quotes do not do anything but highlight the true nature of the site from which these quotes came - to mislead readers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:

There are plenty of sites with the quotes of people involved. These people have credibility and experiences - they were there, you were not. 

 
 

So you choose to lie about these people? How sad is that.

You need to specify where you are getting quotes. If you spam the thread again with copied material without a link I'll report your post. Simple right? Just tell us what lying sites you like to use and avoid copyright infringement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On to the next quote:

Quote
"We have stacks of reports about flying saucers. We take them seriously when you consider we have lost many men and planes trying to intercept them.” General Benjamin Chidlaw, US Eastern Air Defense, Air Defense Command.

At the same time the air force was losing men and planes scrambling to intercept aircraft. Why? Because the pilots were being scrambled and exceeding the limits of the aircraft. How do we know that? Because the aircraft were inspected in most cases. Here is a list of missing aircraft - ones never found - and it includes only 1 UFO intercept with a missing aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missing_aircraft#1940–1959

Even the UFO sites admit this:

https://nationalufocenter.com/2018/07/filers-files-29-2018-we-lost-planes-to-ufos/

Quote

Of this astonishing accident total, most involved fast new jets (such as those scrambled in UFO interceptions), of which 56.2 per cent were found to be caused by pilot error; 8.1 per cent by ground-crew or other personnel failure; 23.4 per cent by failure of parts and equipment in the aircraft; 2.8 per cent by various ‘unsafe conditions’, and –9.5 per cent (1,773) were due to ‘unknown factors’. Thanks to Timothy Good’ book, “Need to Know” P.172

The quote in no way tells us anything other than people looked and crashed. It does not support the idea that there are UFOs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:
Desperation, desperation, desperation - I love it. The fact is, these gentlemen show how weak your positions really are. Scrambling to find a word or two out of place is, well, quite pathetic and humorous in a sad way. Are some quotes not perfect? Sure. But they capture the essence of what has been going on for a long time.
 
Trelane, I'm sure you had a very distinguished military career, as these scientific/military people did. But with 35 plus security levels categorized as Above Top Secret, information is highly compartmentalized.  
 
So anyway, I have far better things to do than attempt a discussion with extremely closed minded individuals, so I'm done - the quotes stand, your arguments don't. And they were there.......not you.........nuff said. 

Not finding words out of place. Finding lies and deceptions.

These quotes are being used to pretend something other than what happened actually transpired. That is the current state of the UFO world. It is a failed story having to make up stories to fill in for the lack of real evidence.

How pathetic for these so-called researchers to stoop to deception and lies to continue to line their pockets with the money of the foolish and gullible.

The quotes appear to be 100% failures.

I already proved that the quotes from Ben Rich were lies and deceptions.

I already proved that the Twining quote and the Chidlaw quotes were used in deceptively.

I already proved that the Wilbert Smith quote was used deceptively.

Who did I use in much of this demonstration of the deceptive and lying nature of these sites? I used a well known UFOlogist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Scudbuster said:
Desperation, desperation, desperation - I love it. The fact is, these gentlemen show how weak your positions really are. Scrambling to find a word or two out of place is, well, quite pathetic and humorous in a sad way. Are some quotes not perfect? Sure. But they capture the essence of what has been going on for a long time.
 
Trelane, I'm sure you had a very distinguished military career, as these scientific/military people did. But with 35 plus security levels categorized as Above Top Secret, information is highly compartmentalized.  
 
So anyway, I have far better things to do than attempt a discussion with extremely closed minded individuals, so I'm done - the quotes stand, your arguments don't. And they were there.......not you.........nuff said. 

There are only three levels of security clearances you can be screened for. I have help a TS for a number of years as a part of my site security assignment. Information is classified on many things from bombs and bullets to planes and tanks. Compartmentalization is used almost exclusively on large scale projects.

Counter arguments with the opposing views and facts do stand. Whether you agree or not is not the point. @stereologist has been clearly laying out how the quotes have been taken out of context or been completely misquoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/01/2019 at 10:37 PM, UM-Bot said:

A newly declassified list of top secret US government projects reads like something out of an X-Files episode.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/325029/secret-pentagon-research-projects-revealed

Why is anyone surprised? The us govt and especially darpa and some civilian contractors have been looking a t such projects, often for decades.

  Many of them are showing some practical application such as forms of cloaking,  light and sound energy weapons,and ( with less success) anti gravity and wormhole technologies  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always such old ideas with the new tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2019 at 4:43 AM, Mr Walker said:

Why is anyone surprised? The us govt and especially darpa and some civilian contractors have been looking a t such projects, often for decades.

  Many of them are showing some practical application such as forms of cloaking,  light and sound energy weapons,and ( with less success) anti gravity and wormhole technologies  

I believe less success means no success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

I believe less success means no success.

All science begins with an understanding of theory. From my reading the development of theoretical underthings is making some progress.  Technological or practical application seems distant but this is alwys the case with any emerging technology In 1900, who would have foreseen working televisions 25 years later? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

All science begins with an understanding of theory. From my reading the development of theoretical underthings is making some progress.  Technological or practical application seems distant but this is alwys the case with any emerging technology In 1900, who would have foreseen working televisions 25 years later? 

I think lots of people working in that area understood that images could be scanned and transmitted a dot at a time. Take a look at the history to see how incremental developments and a number of researchers in many places accomplished this technological feat.

You mention for instance anti-gravity with less success. Please point to anything that is more than as I stated "no success". Gravity can't be blocked and it can't be reversed or reduced. Gravity works as predicted as seen in recent successes with the LIGO.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2019‎-‎01‎-‎25 at 8:19 PM, stereologist said:

False. Eyewitness testimony is not the base of any fact. Another false statement is that it has to happen to someone for it to exist.

Eye witness account is the best. What can be better than first hand experience?

Otherwise someone will always be there to say, "I didn't see it, so I don't believe it"... happens every day. There are always people who refuse to believe unless a DIRECT experience happened.  So explain to me what TRUTH is to them then?...;. you can't. I just did.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mystify said:

Eye witness account is the best. What can be better than first hand experience?

Otherwise someone will always be there to say, "I didn't see it, so I don't believe it"... happens every day. There are always people who refuse to believe unless a DIRECT experience happened.  So explain to me what TRUTH is to them then?...;. you can't. I just did.

 

Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad. People are released from jail all of the time that spent decades in jail due to eyewitnesses. How often are there people in the news telling completely different stories and they were all eyewitnesses?

Eyewitnesses are terrible. They get things wrong. Their memories change.

What is better? Actual evidence is better. Things that can be studied and checked after the fact are better.

Does it have to happen to someone for it to exist? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, stereologist said:

I think lots of people working in that area understood that images could be scanned and transmitted a dot at a time. Take a look at the history to see how incremental developments and a number of researchers in many places accomplished this technological feat.

You mention for instance anti-gravity with less success. Please point to anything that is more than as I stated "no success". Gravity can't be blocked and it can't be reversed or reduced. Gravity works as predicted as seen in recent successes with the LIGO.

 

 I don't really accept the connection between transmitting one dot of sound as evidence that tv would one day become reality  but lets say i do, and then take it back a notch. In 1800 who would have predicted television ? 

lol of course it seems to us NOW that gravity cannot be blocked or reversed  That is simply a lack of of our present technology and theoretical sciences.  To get to a point where we  can, will take research development and advancement of both science and technology.

  But this will only happen if we believe it can be done. The EFFECTS of gravity can be neutralised by applying counter gravitational forces, for example. 

Gravity is an easy one we will probably have anti gravity devices this century (if you don't count mag lev as anti gravity )  but worm hole technology  seems to require a lot more energy and is further away; maybe  another century. 

To be clear, the neutralisation of gravity is only really a matter of the application of sufficient energy in a specific location. beginning with hot air balloons, gliders, powered flight and rockets.

One day you will be able to  strap on a small belt which neutralises the effects of gravity .   

You do not get something for nothing in science. 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 I don't really accept the connection between transmitting one dot of sound as evidence that tv would one day become reality  but lets say i do, and then take it back a notch. In 1800 who would have predicted television ? 

lol of course it seems to us NOW that gravity cannot be blocked or reversed  That is simply a lack of of our present technology and theoretical sciences.  To get to a point where we  can, will take research development and advancement of both science and technology.

  But this will only happen if we believe it can be done. The EFFECTS of gravity can be neutralised by applying counter gravitational forces, for example. 

Gravity is an easy one we will probably have anti gravity devices this century (if you don't count mag lev as anti gravity )  but worm hole technology  seems to require a lot more energy and is further away; maybe  another century. 

To be clear, the neutralisation of gravity is only really a matter of the application of sufficient energy in a specific location. beginning with hot air balloons, gliders, powered flight and rockets.

One day you will be able to  strap on a small belt which neutralises the effects of gravity .   

You do not get something for nothing in science. 

I suppose you don't understand the incremental nature of the processes involved. Going back in time to 1800 is rather meaningless isn't it unless you want to go back hundreds more years and consider stories of people looking at mirrors or pools of water and seeing remote events.

You appear to make the mistake of thinking that physics changes from place to place or time to time. I know there are many people that think there is an alien physics and a human physics and that simply is an idea due to lack of understanding of basic concepts. All of the theoretical understanding of gravity shows that it is never blocked. There is no hint of anything else. All of the observations of the universe show that it cannot be blocked. Your statement "The EFFECTS of gravity can be neutralised by applying counter gravitational forces, for example. " is a whimsical suggestion at best. It really makes no sense at all.

Your suggestion of "we will probably have anti gravity devices this century" is more whimsy. 

With science as an incremental field we know that any hint of anti-gravity would appear a long time before such a thing could be verified and reproduced. No place in the galaxy hints at such a situation.

Here is more malarkey "To be clear, the neutralisation of gravity is only really a matter of the application of sufficient energy in a specific location. beginning with hot air balloons, gliders, powered flight and rockets." That's completely daft. The items you list do not rely on "neutralisation of gravity". All of those items are described by Newton's laws of motion.

For those with an actual understanding of physics it should be noted that there have been a number of studies done looking into the matter of indeterminate forces acting in the universe. Some of these have been resolved and others are being investigated now. None of these issues has ever been investigated as some sort of anti-gravity events since real physicists know what has been proposed here is gibberish.

1. Pioneer anomaly

2. Galactic formation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stereologist said:

Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad. People are released from jail all of the time that spent decades in jail due to eyewitnesses. How often are there people in the news telling completely different stories and they were all eyewitnesses?

Eyewitnesses are terrible. They get things wrong. Their memories change.

What is better? Actual evidence is better. Things that can be studied and checked after the fact are better.

Does it have to happen to someone for it to exist? No.

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before you say they HAVE to be credible to be worthy, I'll agree. Hence ALL the credible people that have come forward. Don't be last to catch on to what is REALLY going on in the world. Who the hell wants to wake up last to what's happening? F-that. I want to know everything...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mystify said:

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

Great. Now you are moving the goal posts. Someone who examines evidence is not an eyewitness.

An eyewitness is someone that has first hand knowledge of the event. Eyewitness is not someone that looks through the potential evidence at a later time. These people have second hand or third hand knowledge.

The eyewitness is the one seeing what happened and they are notoriously bad at getting it correct. It is not "memories are hard to believe in some people". It is people in general are bad at reporting what they saw.

 

Seriously?  Now you want to pretend that there is an unknown you want to pull into this. Imagine that, not all of the facts are a case are known.

 

 

Thanks for the joke link. That diving cosmos is a funny hoax site. It is the scraped up vomit of 2012. It reads like David Wilcock, the hoaxer. He was  one of the 2012 proponents with no new ideas of his own but he sure sold a lot of stupidity to the gullible fools. I was trying to find even one piece of truth at the link but couldn't. Usually sites like that begin with something truthful and then go off the deep end. Not that site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mystify said:

And before you say they HAVE to be credible to be worthy, I'll agree. Hence ALL the credible people that have come forward. Don't be last to catch on to what is REALLY going on in the world. Who the hell wants to wake up last to what's happening? F-that. I want to know everything...

 

Don't depend on hilarious joke sites like divine cosmos for any info.

So who do you think is credible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Mystify said:

 

Actual evidence STILL needs to be seen by someone to be VALIDATED. So regardless... EYEWITNESS is inevitable in the process bro... simple. I agree memories are hard to believe in some people and some cases... but still doesn't change the fact that inorder for something to be validated it has to be observed by someone to NOTE it. That's why it's called observe.

 

Seriously... I don't think you've read enough into all SSP programs out there and ALL of what the higher ups have been disclosing.

 

https://divinecosmos.com/davids-blog/1209-endgame-pt-2/

 

 

 

 

Most cosmologists and phyicists accept the existence of black holes. 

Nobody has ever seen one, however. We've merely measured their effects. 

So there are no direct witnesses. Therefore they can't exist ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.