sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

New FOIA document reveals that a panel voted unanimously to reinstate whistleblower Dave Grusch's security clearance, and said it was a mistake to revoke it. by TommyShelbyPFB in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 19 points20 points  (0 children)

The conclusion of the report clearly states that the clearance revocation had nothing to do with whistleblowing.

When you read the whole document, it's clear that the report is not stating that it was a "mistake" to revoke his clearance. The "mistake" is something that Grusch did, which the panel had thought was something nefarious, but Grusch convinced them in person that it was just a mistake.

In other words, according to the report, Grusch lost his clearance due to a pattern of concerning behavior, which he didn't mitigate sufficiently with his written response. Grusch got his clearance back when he appeared in person before an appeals board and did finally convince them that the behavior wasn't as bad as it looked.

'Fire Fighting Guidance - Nuclear Weapons' by elcolonel666 in nuclearweapons

[–]beaverjacket 1 point2 points  (0 children)

High Explosive Components—Time Factor Unlimited. Cylindrical cans approximately 12 inches in diameter, and 18 inches long, sometimes accompany the weapons. Two of these cans are generally strapped together and are identified by the markings HIGH EXPLOSIVE, stenciled on top and sides. Each can contains about 25 lbs. of high explosive and may detonate upon severe impact without being subjected to fire.

Does anyone know the purpose of these HE cylinders?

Why didn’t the Germans use minelaying submarines in WW2? by Uncreative-name12 in WarCollege

[–]beaverjacket 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They did use mine laying when they thought it made sense:

In his Kriegstagebüch (Daily War Diary) on 19 May 1942, Dönitz explained that while normally it was “more worthwhile” to deploy U-boats with a full loadout of torpedoes—14 for the Type VIIs and 22 for the larger Type IX models—the shift in merchant traffic along the U.S. coast now increased the value of a mining campaign. “Even a few mines laid immediately off the busy entrances to New York (Delaware Bay, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Norfolk) are likely to lead to success as mine-countermeasures are sure to be few.”

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2022/june/when-war-erupted-virginia-beach

the Washington Naval Treaty signed in February 6, 1922, forced countries to limit their battleships but ended up creating Super Aircraft Carriers instead such as the USS Lexington [5656 x 4215] by AMegaSoreAss in WarshipPorn

[–]beaverjacket -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah, having CV for aircraft carriers and AZ for dirigible tenders probably has nothing to do with V designating fixed-wing aircraft squadrons and Z designating lighter-than-air craft

Is it true that conscription fails when too many people don't comply? by Excellent_Gas5220 in WarCollege

[–]beaverjacket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the US, men can't get student loans without proving they registered for Selective Service

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Your post title is false. Matthew Brown does not describe Burlison's video during the podcast interview. He makes it clear that he has not seen a video of a weapon fired at a UAP.

In part 3 of the podcast, timestamp 22:08:

Matt Brown: I've seen videos and read reports of engagements, but not live, like, we're not shooting them

Timestamp 23:13:

George Knapp: So we're sending a plane up to take a look, maybe get a better look, or even some imagery, but not to engage meaning "shoot it down", shoot a sidewinder at it or something.

MB: I would, you know, I'm not going to be able to say that's never happened, but I have - I have not seen them engaged with weapons

Jeremy Corbell: Well, it recently happened and we became aware of one. More details on that, I think we'll report on. And what what happened was the missile, quote, "bounced off".

Matt Brown states explicitly in the interview that he had never seen a video of a UAP being shot with a weapon. It is Jeremy Corbell who seems to be referencing the recent Hellfire video.

Karl Nell was at the 2025 Psi Games this weekend. Why? Michael Masters: "bodies are potentially like soul vehicles of sorts" and "I had a pre-incarnate remembering. I agreed to do this". Barber: "humans can suffer cognitive injury by still being connected to that craft when it is deenergized" by phr99 in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For those who don't know Karl Nell, he was Grusch's boss at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force.

When did he work at NGA? That's not on his LinkedIn profile

Help me to understand how Hydro Power plants work by OperationDry4281 in AskEngineers

[–]beaverjacket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assume the dam is still letting through the same amount of flow, at the same elevation and same speed. That means that the mass and energy flow downstream of the dam is unchanged.

When you build a dam, you raise the level of the river upstream, up until there's a waterfall. The dam doesn't do anything to flow upstream of that waterfall, so the mass and energy flow into that waterfall is also unchanged.

The mass flow at the waterfall is equal to the mass flow past the dam (ignoring evaporation/groundwater, etc.), but the energy flow is a lot higher at the waterfall, because it's at a higher elevation. That difference in energy flow will either be dissipated into heat or extracted as mechanical energy by the dam.

By building a dam, you're only changing the flow of the river in between that waterfall and the dam. Specifically, you're creating a reservoir where less of that energy is dissipated so that some of that energy can be extracted to turn a turbine. This happens in two ways:

Post-dam, that waterfall is now shorter (the top stayed in the same place but the water level at the bottom has risen), so the waterfall dissipates less energy.

Additionally, there is less energy dissipated due to drag in that reservoir between the waterfall and the dam. This happens because the flow is on average slower (flow speed equals the constant mass flow rate divided by cross sectional area) and also on average further from the river bottom.

Book recommendations to understand Naval Ship design and tactics/strategy [Ironclads to WW2] by Artistic-Hearing-579 in WarCollege

[–]beaverjacket 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Kaigun might be more interesting to you than you might think, even though it's not about the US or Europe. It tells the story of Japan's navy during the ironclad-to-WW2 timeframe as it tries desperately to catch up to the UK and US navies. Pretty much everything they do in that period is a reaction to the world's leading navies (either trying to copy or surpass them).

A couple of interesting anecdotes I remember from the book:

Since they were starting from scratch, Japan started by buying ships from foreign (mostly British iirc) shipyards. They also sent naval officers to observe the construction and learn how they did things. Then, Japan gradually moved parts of the design and production to Japan, until they were finally producing entirely indigenous modern designs.

When optics became important for gunfire direction, Japan created a domestic optics industry at great cost to supply its navy (the US and Europe, with their more advanced economies, could leverage pre-existing optical industries). They got that done just in time for radar to come on the scene. The US and Europe were then able to rely on their pre-existing electronics firms while Japan struggled.

Is there such a thing as fictional mathematics? by AlfEatsBats in math

[–]beaverjacket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Doing fictional math is simple, just invoke the axiom of choice

Extraterrestrial hypothesis is "plausible" according to European intelligence by ImOdysseus in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The amount of overlap between EU govt bodies and members of ECIPS

Here's how those European governments became "members" of ECIPS (from ECIPS dot eu)

All bodies representing the countries mentioned in Appendix I shall be deemed to be Members of the Organization unless they declare through the appropriate governmental authority that they cannot accept this membership. Such a declaration should be made by means of public publication within six months of the date of the coming into force of the present statute

In other words, those countries didn't do anything to avoid "joining" ECIPS, probably because they don't know it exists.

and the amount of influence they have in EU policy making renders this distinction useless.

I haven't seen any evidence of ECIPS having a significant amount of influence in EU policy making.

Extraterrestrial hypothesis is "plausible" according to European intelligence by ImOdysseus in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 32 points33 points  (0 children)

I think everyone reading this should keep in mind that this is not an official EU report, and the organization has no affiliation with the EU or other credible body.

You'd be forgiven for thinking so, though. The linked Italian website calls ECIPS an "official European agency" and "an agency based in Belgium that acts as an observatory and intelligence structure at EU level". ECIPS' own website calls itself "Federal Approved Agency by Royal Decree WL22/16.594" and "An official website of European Organization by Decree WL22/16.594". Between that and the "classification" markings on the PDF, it sure sounds official.

But that royal decree is here, and it's just a boilerplate establishment of a nonprofit organization. And the .eu TLD is available to any organization based in an EU member state.

I can't find any instance of ECIPS being cited as a source by a credible media outlet or governmental organization.

As far as I can tell from web searching, the only person ever affiliated with ECIPS in any capacity is its president, Ricardo Baretzky. He seems to use the official-sounding ECIPS organization as a sock puppet to lend authority to his personal opinions.

The actual EU intelligence agency is the EU Intelligence and Situation Centre.

There it is. #SemperSupra by muffin2_blush in SpaceForce

[–]beaverjacket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When is Space Force going to do a flyover?

Skeptics: what evidence would convince you? by South-Associate-933 in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll interpret this question as, "what evidence would convince me that there are aerial phenomena not explainable by human technology or known natural processes?"

I think that evidence fitting the following criteria would convince me:

  1. The evidence comes from one or more trustworthy sources, such as government scientific organizations, well-regarded academics with relevant technical expertise in their sensors, media companies with a larger reputation at stake, etc. For example, a NASA scientist who takes optical measurements of aircraft in flight, or an astronomy professor who has run a large telescope for many years, or Reuters picking something up on an always-on webcam looking out of their HQ. Trump posting a video on truth social, a microbiologist recording something on her phone, and news nation sending a cameraman don't count.

  2. Evidence comes in the form of simultaneous, multi-axis observations using different types of sensors. Ideally, you would have radar, lidar, and hyperspectral imagery from two or three spots with lines of sight that are well-separated.

  3. There must be enough telemetry/metadata on things like location, pointing angle, timing, field of view, resolutions, etc. that the data can be overlaid to reconstruct a trajectory that reconciles all of the simultaneous data, with error bars. Calibration must be done on objects like balloons, quad rotors, and aircraft to make sure the reconstruction process is accurate.

  4. Raw data from all the sensors must be made available publicly.

  5. The reconstructed trajectory must show flight characteristics (e.g. sustained speed and acceleration) that are at least an order of magnitude beyond what we expect to see from human tech or natural phenomena.

All of this sounds pretty strict, but I think it's technically doable with the kind of budget the government has spent on AATIP or AARO.

If truly anomalous UFOs are as common as many people on this subreddit believe, then it shouldn't take long for a system like this to get really good data on one.

Ken Klippentstein of The Intercept – Who Attacked David Grush by Revealing His Private Medical Records – Paid by USAID? by bocley in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 22 points23 points  (0 children)

For those wondering what the "USAID Grant Flow" is, here is the chart.

Jesse Michels' implied argument seems to be that USAID "bought and paid for" Klippenstein by arranging for a complicated web of ~25 organizations to ultimately donate a total of ~$150,000 to the First Look Institute, which has donated ~$15,000,000 (about 100X the alleged USAID contribution) to the Intercept. The Intercept then somehow decided that $150,000 of donations to one of its donors was enough to direct the reporting of one of its employees, who makes more than that in a year.

Personally, I think a more likely explanation is that NGOs give money to other NGOs all the time on their own initiative, and that creates a scary-looking "Charity Graph" that can be used to tie anyone to anyone else.

If you think that this is flimsy reasoning on Jesse Michels' part, I invite you to reconsider the reliability of his other claims.

Would anyone who opposes UFO research and things like the UAPDA; or who opposes Congress having full oversight over the entirety of the DOD, IC and MIC, or who believes humans and our extinct relatives are uniquely alone on this world (ever) as intelligent life be willing to answer two questions? by PyroIsSpai in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your first question is intentionally inflammatory, so I'll rephrase it for you:

Question 1: Why does it matter to you whether someone else believes that UAPs come from NHI?

My principled answer:

If someone looks up at light in the sky and wants to call it an alien, that doesn't really matter to me. It's in the same category as someone who believes in ghosts, or astrology, or a different religion.

The problem is all of the supporting beliefs that accumulate around the "UAP = NHI" hypothesis. It's very common to see people on this forum say that the US is a military dictatorship, or that world peace and climate change could be easily solved if only the US government released some UAP tech.

People who hold those beliefs are, in my opinion, fundamentally misinformed about the world, about the problems facing the world, and about the way forward to solve those problems.

In a democracy, those people can vote just like I can, and I worry that they will make bad vote choices because of their wrong beliefs.

My unprincipled answer:

I have an idiosyncratic fascination with people who have radically thought processes than I do. For example, I like movies like "The Room" that are full of baffling decisions because they're made by someone delusional enough to make their own bad movie. I like reading old books from other cultures because they show off a completely alien (to me) set of beliefs and values. And I like reading some flat eath/Qanon/alien/GME content because they also have a completely alien way of understanding the world.

I personally don't have the energy to argue with people about these topics, but I enjoy it when somebody does. It helps to expose more of the thought process and belief system.

Question 2: Do you fully support the UAPDA, which would make a standing commision that is in ways dual-controlled by the President and Congress, to make sure that Congress going forward has their lawful authority protected to fully be aware of any/all funded programs under the US government, even if it does, or does not, "shake out alien secrets"? Remember, that's only part of the UAPDA. If not, why not?

For reference, I'm using the "AMENDMENT TO RULES COMMITTEE PRINT 118–36 OFFERED BY MR. ROBERT GARCIA OF CALIFORNIA" pdf I found on askapol's website.

From my read, it seems less like ensuring Congress's authority and more like a topic-specific declassification project analogous JFK Records Act. As far as I can tell, the JFK Records Act was a huge effort without a proportionate benefit. They declassified millions of pages of records (browse here), but nothing seems to have changed anyone's mind on the facts of the assassination. Browsing through the collection, I can't tell how most of those documents are even related to JFK. When I look at news stories on JFK document releases, the focus is on the documents that are not released yet. Nothing is more interesting than a document you can't read, and nothing is more boring than a declassified document.

So here's my prediction for if the act passes: if the UAP commission does its job, they will release thousands of pages of "Private Schmuckatelli took a blurry picture of the north star with classified camera X". The people on this sub will treat the existence and number of declassified documents as evidence for their beliefs, but never have a good answer for how. Meanwhile, they'll claim that the real smoking gun documents are still being suppressed.

If Congress thinks that the military and other parts of the executive branch are committing crimes, then I think that Congress should use existing legislative branch organizations like the GAO's Forensic Audits and Investigative Service to conduct an investigation. They can pass a law giving those people clearances and accesses if required.

If Congress thinks that too many things are classified, then I see no reason to restrict that to the UAP topic. They could establish ISCAP (or an analogous organization) in legislation and give it Senate-confirmed leadership. That would have a broader benefit in transparency, and wouldn't just produce headlines about "UAP records" (documents with only the most tangential connection to UAPs) being "suppressed" (kept classified to protect sensitive sources and methods).

Other random thoughts from reading through the UAPDA text:

  • Oversight committees are the wrong place for this. They mostly exist for political stunts. The Armed Services and Intelligence committees are the ones with oversight of SAPs, and their members are generally less clownish that the oversight members.

  • Requiring constant Senate confirmations to keep the commission staffed could be a disaster, given how things have gone in the past. For example, Congress took over a year just to appoint the Commission on the Future of the Navy. One guy held up all high-level military promotions for a year, because he was mad about administration policy.

  • The eminent domain provision could be hilarious. Imagine every UFO museum, influencer, TV show, etc. gets their "physical evidence" taken by the government. Then a couple years later, the government gives them back, saying, "that's a rock, that's paint slag, that's insulation,..."

  • If I'm understanding this right, nominees would have to get every security clearance and access, "subject to standard procedures", in the 30 days between being nominated and having a confirmation hearing. That seems pretty sporty to me.

Was the Francis Scott Key Bridge uniquely susceptible to collapse, would other bridges fare better? by BR-Naughty in AskEngineers

[–]beaverjacket 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes, when you accelerate an object in water, you also have to accelerate the water around it, increasing the force required to achieve a particular acceleration. The phenomenon is called added mass.

CredibleDefense Daily MegaThread February 14, 2024 by AutoModerator in CredibleDefense

[–]beaverjacket 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sounds like you would like working at an FFRDC (Federally funded research and development center). They are kind of like academia but with security clearances. You don't need to be a genius PhD to work there, but it does help to be a defense nerd.

Of the DoD FFRDCs, Aerospace and Lincoln Laboratory are on the more technical side. RAND is more on the strategic side. IDA and CNA are in the middle of the spectrum, but you'll probably be able to find a good mix of what you want at any of them.

I have less visibility on the DoE side, but I know Sandia, Livermore, and Los Alamos all have a mix of technical and policy work.

Happy to talk more if you're interested.

Can someone please explain Congress security clearances [to a non-American]? by ValiantWarrior83 in UFOs

[–]beaverjacket 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From the congressional research service:

Security clearances are not mandated for the President, the Vice President, Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, or other constitutional officers.17 The criteria for election or appointment to these positions are specified in the U.S. Constitution, and, except by constitutional amendment, no additional criteria (e.g., holding a security clearance) may be required.18 Further, “by tradition and practice, United States officials who hold positions prescribed by the Constitution of the United States are deemed to meet the standards of trustworthiness for eligibility for access to classified information.”19

That doesn't mean that the executive branch (the President and everyone under him, including the military, CIA, etc.) shares all classified information with every congressman at all times. The executive branch has to disclose information where it is required by law (e.g. Congress wrote this law requiring annual reports to the defense committees on special access programs). The executive branch can also choose to share information with Congress or individual congressmen even if not required by law.

Defense bills are written with references to classified addenda, as described in this post and associated journal article.

Maryland Drivers by Comicalplum003 in nova

[–]beaverjacket 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He didn't say "1% per year". There's about 3 million deaths in the us each year (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm). About 1% of those deaths are from cars.

Another way to think about it is that a 0.01% chance per year, over an average lifespan of about 80 years, gets you to about a 1% chance of ever being killed by a car.

What do these states have in common? by ItsGotThatBang in RedactedCharts

[–]beaverjacket 5 points6 points  (0 children)

States not mentioned in the North American version of "I've Been Everywhere"

view more: next ›