Daniel Lavelle: And what about Go Fast? Debunkers would say it’s not going fast at all, it’s going quite slowly, and it’s a lot higher than they think.
Sean Kirkpatrick: Go Fast was analyzed with the NASA team, and it’s definitely just parallax. […] Everything I saw from the NASA analysis was accurate to everything else that we’ve seen parallax show up in. […] In the case of the tic tac , there’s a lot of other hypotheses that people tend to gloss over, like submersible launched vehicles and other radar artifacts.
One of the things that people don’t fully appreciate, is that a lot of the stuff that we see at these ranges – and I don’t want to speak to tic tac in particular – but all of them come from when there’s weird anomalous radar signatures. And what people don’t understand is that these are test wings. Test wings are testing new capabilities. And so new radars or new radar waveforms get artifacts in them. And that’s why you’re out there testing them to try to figure out how to optimize them so that they can be used in regular operations.
Sean Kirkpatrick: Pilots sometimes say, ‘Hey, I saw something that looks like it was maneuvering, but it doesn’t look like it had any means of propulsion or visible means of maneuvering?’ Well, there are lots of technologies that are state-of-the-art today, and have been for the last decade or two, that would present those kinds of signatures. […] they built and were flying spherical drones that had cubes in them. […]And how do you make a drone like that maneuver around without propellers that are visible? One of the reasons you make a spherical drone is for indoor use because it’s safer. Or in outdoor stadiums, because it’s safer; if it crashes into the crowd, it’s not going to cut people and hurt them. So what they do is where the cube touches the sphere at the corners, they fuse it, they it cut it out. And they stick small turbo fans, or in some cases jet propulsion or air propulsion systems. And so now I have eight of these around this sphere. And that gives you the greatest fidelity and maneuvering.
Why is this important? Well, here is an example of a cube in a sphere drone that exists today and that doesn’t require aliens. Now people will say, ‘Well, that was a couple of years ago, and the pilots saw this 15 years ago.’ Well, this is how the classified world works. If I am a nation state, and I have an advanced technology that I’m working on, I will classify it and I will not let my scientists say anything about it or publish on it, until I get to a point where I’ve got a capability that I feel comfortable with. And the rest of the scientific world is starting to catch up. At that point, we may then let some of the scientists or associated companies publish on some of the basics that don’t give away our secret capabilities. So you’ll see publications on these things, but it’s usually a decade or two, after the fact.
Daniel Lavelle: Some of these witnesses have described hypersonic speeds and turns at right angles that defy the laws of physics as they see it. Does the US government or other governments have that sort of capability?
Sean Kirkpatrick: If you dig into the data that we have, it almost always turns out to be an optical illusion, a sensor anomaly, or some other weird aspect of how that data was collected, and inevitably it does not turn out to be [an object] traveling at hypersonic velocities or making right angle turns.
My favorite one is the right angle turn that we recreated: here’s the platform going around, and here’s the sensor underneath, and it’s turning at the same time as they’re banking. And when you put all of that together and you’ve recreated it, the object was hardly moving – it was moving with the wind – but it appeared to be moving. And unless you have an inertial reference frame that you can pin it to, it’s gonna look weird.
Daniel Lavelle: You’ve talked about a circular reporting cycle that’s going on. I’m just gonna read some names to you: George Knapp, Kuis Elizondo, Jeremy Corbell, Christopher Mellon, Jay Stratton. Are those some of the names involved in this self-repeating circle?
Sean Kirkpatrick: I can’t name specific names, because the legislation extended whistle-blower protections to anybody that came to speak to us, and there are privacy act and whistle-blower restrictions, which is why in the report there are no names, just numbers.
Daniel Lavelle: Is the Department of Defense embarrassed that it got duped by Robert Bigelow to get 22 million to investigate ghosts and skinwalkers and things?
Sean Kirkpatrick: So the reason that part is in there is because that’s already out in the public domain. That’s already been documented. So I don’t have anything to to add on to that. Now, interestingly enough, some of the legislation, including the extension of the whistle-blower protections to these folks, was actually ghost-written by some of the same people who lobbied Congress. So they managed to write themselves into their own protections to allow them to go do some of this stuff.
Daniel Lavelle: So when David Grusch testified in Congress that he had been told that the US government is in possession of alien spacecraft which they’re reverse engineering, and that they have alien bodies, and he said somebody he trusts told him that…are we talking about that same circle?
Sean Kirkpatrick: Yes
Daniel Lavelle: So the people who lobbied for this program in the first place are the same people who told him that they have these things?
Sean Kirkpatrick: It’s even better than that. If you look in the historical report on page 36, you’ll see 1,2,3,4, or 5 main bullets that speak to this same group of people who had their hands in everything from comported material exploitation to congressional lobbying, to the writing of legislation, to expanding legitimate special access programmes or purportedly for alien, and extra terrestrial exploitation, which they weren’t supposed to do. There’s a lot of things there that all of the same people were involved in, including some of the same ones who were involved in the think tank study. It’s all the same group.
Daniel Lavelle: Do you think David Grusch is a patsy of this UFO lobby? That he’s been told this stuff?
Sean Kirkpatrick: I don’t want to speculate on people’s motivations. Our remit was to lay out the evidence and investigate the allegations. And the evidence is pretty conclusive. There’s no evidence to support any of the allegations or any extraterrestrial reverse engineering or non human biologics or whatever you want to call it. But what’s interesting is that some of the language that was used in the open testimony of Mr. Grusch, and others, is actually the same language that was in the original story back in the 1960s, and then again in the 80s, 90s. So if you look at this story, historically, and some of that is in historical record, you see this story crop up every decades and it’s same pretty much the same story.
Sean Kirkpatrick: Some of that same core group of individuals that we were talking about earlier had reached out to one of our industry partners and convinced them to take a look at a piece of material that they claimed was part of a crashed UFO. And then turned around to point to that company and say, hey, they’re exploiting and reverse engineering crashed UFOs! Well, they were the ones that gave it to them!
Daniel Lavelle: That is ridiculous.
Sean Kirkpatrick: And then once we actually got control of that little project and took a look at it, it turns out that’s not really [ufo material], it’s most likely a piece of a missile casing from an Air Force test back in the 1960s or 50s. So this is the kind of circular accusations that have been going on. You’ve got a group of people that start something and then they go out and say, ‘they’re doing this!’ So the same group of people who expanded this special access programme, that they weren’t supposed to, then go out and say there’s a hidden special access programme that has UAP/UFO stuff. Well, yeah: because you expanded it!
(sightly edited for clarity)
submitted by /u/WetnessPensive
[link] [comments]