AATIP, BAASS, AAVS, UAPS & UFOs - a tipping point?
Because the Australian Ufologist sadly ceased print publication my column "Science and the UFO Controversy" did not appear in print form. Ufologist editor Robert Frola had prepared the final issue but circumstances led to the decision to cease publication. Robert has kindly provided a PDF version of that final copy. So here is my final column for the Ufologist magazine.
Recent developments in the AATIP Pentagon study saga suggest that open scientific analysis and sharing of data is not going to be a major priority of the agenda being played out in the short to near term. Instead, it seems very limited releases of information that fall short of worthwhile data, seems to be what to expect. In this column, I describe attempts to understand what happened in a very specific affair which involved Robert Bigelow, BAASS and MUFON in the time window that was concurrent with the rollout of the AATIP/BAASS programme - the Port Jervis "EM"/"solid light" encounter. Were the more intriguing and probative aspects of this incident minimised in its public outings because of the BAASS/AATIP connection and its possible contributions to potentially disruptive technological breakthroughs - namely the ability to affect motor vehicles and manipulate light analogues - namely "solid light."
I've attempted to find out, but I've been advised that Luis Elizondo, the head of the AATIP programme from 2010, and who confirms having a great working relationship with Robert Bigelow and BAASS, will not be responding to specific researcher enquiry issues for the foreseeable future, rather only media-related outings of the To the Stars Academy (TTSA) agenda will be the focus. As BAASS has shown that their data is not readily available and its propriety Bigelow/BAASS anyway, open scientific sharing doesn't seem to be a priority in this dynamic.
So if there is anyone out there that can shed light on this curious affair - the 2009 Port Jervis case and it's potential fallout - please contact me - billozfiles@tpg.com.au
Luis Elizondo appears to be an interesting asset for potentially moving the UFO subjective in positive directions but the apparent agenda of TTSA and BAASS seem to preclude any substantial open and transparent scientific dialogue, at a coherent level that might allow serious open and meaningful scientific analysis. I hope things change in a more positive way.
My column:
Recent developments in the AATIP Pentagon study saga suggest that open scientific analysis and sharing of data is not going to be a major priority of the agenda being played out in the short to near term. Instead, it seems very limited releases of information that fall short of worthwhile data, seems to be what to expect. In this column, I describe attempts to understand what happened in a very specific affair which involved Robert Bigelow, BAASS and MUFON in the time window that was concurrent with the rollout of the AATIP/BAASS programme - the Port Jervis "EM"/"solid light" encounter. Were the more intriguing and probative aspects of this incident minimised in its public outings because of the BAASS/AATIP connection and its possible contributions to potentially disruptive technological breakthroughs - namely the ability to affect motor vehicles and manipulate light analogues - namely "solid light."
I've attempted to find out, but I've been advised that Luis Elizondo, the head of the AATIP programme from 2010, and who confirms having a great working relationship with Robert Bigelow and BAASS, will not be responding to specific researcher enquiry issues for the foreseeable future, rather only media-related outings of the To the Stars Academy (TTSA) agenda will be the focus. As BAASS has shown that their data is not readily available and its propriety Bigelow/BAASS anyway, open scientific sharing doesn't seem to be a priority in this dynamic.
So if there is anyone out there that can shed light on this curious affair - the 2009 Port Jervis case and it's potential fallout - please contact me - billozfiles@tpg.com.au
Luis Elizondo appears to be an interesting asset for potentially moving the UFO subjective in positive directions but the apparent agenda of TTSA and BAASS seem to preclude any substantial open and transparent scientific dialogue, at a coherent level that might allow serious open and meaningful scientific analysis. I hope things change in a more positive way.
My column:
posted by Bill Chalker at 5:57 PM
0 comments
