Hi Everyone,
Okay, I decided to clean up and expand my Fireside Chat podcast from two days ago. This is the same theme with some of the same information but a better description of the Ubatuba event as well as an extended description of the crazy but dramatic UFO encounter at Brazil’s Fort Itaipu on Nov 4, 1957. Those two events were just two months apart in virtually the same place. Dr. Olavo Fontes investigated them both (among other cases) and I placed his sensational letter from Feb. 27, 1958 in the context of these two events. I also added a bit more in terms of visuals for people to follow along.
Often I like to try something out here before I do it for the rest of the world, frequently benefitting from your feedback. I think this is an important theme and while we can easily go into the weeds of wondering about disinformation in this instance (who were those Brazilian Navy Intelligence guys, after all?), it’s still a fact that Fontes clearly got information that seems accurate from them in relation to the phenomenon of UFO crash retrievals. In 1958!
One thing I didn’t mention either in my FCP or tonight’s show, but perhaps should have: both of the events I discuss here were right at the coastline of Brazil and in both cases the object appeared to come in from over the ocean. Are we dealing with more USO activity?
I think these historical cases are very important and I am afraid we are in danger of losing our history. Understanding these cases of the past matters when considering the contemporary UFO/UAP phenomenon.
Richard
So true – the history of the Phenomenon is vast and so easily forgotten without preserving the data and somehow providing access to it.
Fontes looks like a cross between Bogart and Dean.😆
So weird that so many of these craft have crashed upon entry into earth’s atmosphere. I wonder what went wrong.
The Brazilian duo, ostensibly from a local intelligence agency remain a curiosity. I’d think, without formally being “read-in” and signing an NDA with blood that it would preclude them from divulging such specific information, particularly with someone initially displaying a rather combative attitude.
As a layperson I can only speculate as to how the propulsion field of some of these craft might have been generated. I believe that when energy is released from a nuclear reaction it’s in the form of heat, which could then possibly be converted to electromagnetic energy which, when perhaps duly-focused might influence the surrounding space-time continuum in some manner – maybe something along those lines. I still think of Allan Lavigne’s point about simplicity being a more advanced form of technology, which makes sense to me and I suspect that these craft may possibly utilize, in concert some very fundamental principles of physics.
Agreed – given the array ufo information that’s been gathered over the past 70 years, our public discourse is absolutely lame.
Thanks, Richard for bringing-forth these two cases!
Richard,
Nice presentation as always. I would ask as a member in good standing to please give your take/Insights on the latest news regarding the Nord Stream article, this is mind numbing info. As a historian, is there anything I’m missing , because this seems like an act of war if true. Good old Sy has an excellent good record of these types of pieces, I’m beginning to think this is another part of the extinction process for humanity, maybe I’m overreacting. But this feels like the beginning of the end ….
Great timing..l am about to post some quick thoughts.
One of many excellent broadcasts! One reason why I consider your work to be critically important to penetrating the UFO Mystery is our HISTORY. (That was a revelation from the original Blade Runner – the Replicants were their history, right or wrong , real or not!) The Secret-Keepers would love to turn us into the Eloi from the Time Machine, ignorant of everything that has gone before.
When I was listening to the revelations of the naval intelligence officers, and they told the doctor that there had been 6 Crash Retrievals known to the allied military powers in the world and THREE of them were from the USA, I thought once again about my friend, June, when she told me that the scientists and engineers at WPAFB knew about 3 crashed UFOs by the time she left their employ in 1952. I wish she had lived longer; I have thought up many more questions, but I am grateful. (I still use her as a Guide)
The only problem is that I have grave doubts about the TRINITY case because I was part of an investigative team (MUFON Special Assignments Team). It is a one witness anecdotal case with physical “evidence” that is made of very earthly heavy cast aluminum and it looks suspiciously like a replacement part of a windmill used to pump water for cattle. Further, there were some extremely doubtful claims made in connection with the case about “toxic weeds planted by government agents to keep UFO investigators away,” which turned out to be jimson weed (id’d by a professional botanist).
Is this Jim??? If so, welcome! And if not, welcome also! — but I am assuming this is Jim Clarkson, author of the outstanding book, Tell My Story, which is all about the account of June Crane. I’m interested in your take on Trinity. Are there any places where a detailed critique exists?
Richard,
Since you brought up the topic of your recent Alan Lavigne interview, I just wanted to mention that I haven’t had a chance to get all the way through it yet, but am continuing to do so, and make comments on it. You’re just too prolific for me to keep up with. I’m sure you’re even putting together something right now as I write this about the unidentified flying beer cans that we shot down over Alaska and Canada. Anyhow, I’m not sure if you continue to monitor comments on older podcasts, but if you do, I’ll continue making them. If not, I will give my finger tips a rest, and try to keep up with your more recent videos.
Before I continue, I want to first get your opinion on how balloon-gate is going to affect the UAP narrative going forward, if it hasn’t already. Frankly, none of what is going on right now makes any sense. Clearly, NORAD had been tracking balloons and other “objects” all along. Has the USG simply changed their rules of engagement regarding balloons and unknown flying objects as the result of the political fallout of balloon-gate, or is this all just coincidence? And if this kind of response to intrusions have been going on all along, which must have been the case to at least some degree, then why is the USG being transparent about it now, as opposed to before? Could it be due in large part to the fallout of the new UAP era, or is it just due to politics? Should we delude ourselves into thinking that we will ultimately learn the truth about what either of these two latest shot-down objects are, or were? Also, I recall seeing an interview a few years ago on tv with an ex-military pilot who said he once flew by what he could only describe as a relatively small cylinder shaped object that was just floating in mid air. He clearly did not believe this object was just some small balloon or dirigible. Unfortunately, I forgot where I saw the interview. So there’s that.
Now, on to this podcast: Dr. Fontes brought up an interesting topic regarding “international cooperation” and “conspiracies” relative to the crash retrieval phenomenon in general—in particular with regards to the apparent American role in these international (and domestic) incidents. Could the entire theory about the existence of a deep-state UFO entity within the USG IC be incorrect, or at least myopic in its scope, in that it is more likely a secret breakaway global coalition comprised of stakeholders from numerous countries, who work outside the aegis of any one nation, but operates within all of them; thus transcending geopolitical boundaries? Such an organization would explain a lot of incongruities, like the apparent disconnect with the Pentagon faction that was behind the recent soft disclosure effort, as well as Russians at S-4, and the apparent level of unparalleled international cooperation between numerous countries and what is assumed to be “American” military and intelligence personnel. Such an organization wouldn’t necessarily be beholden to any one nation, per se, and would therefore be loath to give up their secrets to any one government—even the one that might in fact be the organization’s progenitor and it’s largest ongoing benefactor (despite not being aware of it). Just saying. Not that I believe it, but it could possibly explain a lot. What say you?
Regarding Dr. Fontes’ speculation about ET’s use of EM radiation as a weapon (if you want to call it that): he may very well be correct that the reported effects on people and equipment could likely be attributed to EM radiation of some sort. I don’t disagree with that assessment at all; however, he seems to be all over the place regarding EM radiation in general, and how it might apply to such a weapon system (again, if you want to call it that). For example, he can’t speculate that such a weapon would involve high frequency waves, and then at the same time refer to them as a form of microwave, which is a relatively low frequency/long wavelength and low energy band of EM (as compared to say other frequency bands of EM, such as UV, X-ray, and gamma ray, which consist of high frequency/short wavelength and high-energy forms of EM having enough internal energy to ionize matter). Remember, the characteristic effects of EM radiation is as much, and often more, a function of the given wavelength of EM radiation, relative to how that wavelength selectively interacts with specific molecules of matter (coupled with the inherent energy associated with the particular frequency of radiation), than it does with the total amount of photons associated with that radiation relative to the energy required to generate it. The ability for ET’s emitted beams to react with one type of matter and not another…say clothing fibers, and not exposed skin…could be explained by the inherent selectively of EM radiation, like how specific wavelengths of EM within the microwave band can selectively heat food, but not the glass or ceramic plate holding the food; however any theories about how a given wavelength of EM can be specifically used is mere speculation that would likely be based on faulty assumptions —even at this point in time relative to our level of understanding of EM radiation. His rationale that they use EM beams to ionize the surrounding air is more akin to the formation of plasma associated with discharges of atmospheric electrical potential, known as lightning, than it is EM radiation. Moreover, the thermal energy produced by such plasma, or ionized gas, is not selective, and therefore would not differentially heat up clothing but not exposed skin. That’s not how the transfer of thermal energy works. Perhaps if Dr. Fontes had theorized that ET was able to use a specific wavelength of EM radiation, say within the relatively low-energy microwave wavelength band, which was manipulated in some unknown way, perhaps using coherent, or semi-coherent emissions, that could selectively construct or deconstruct a given fraction of the emissions making up the beam so that it might selectively affect clothing as opposed to skin, then I could accept his theory as plausible, at least based on my own limited, and therefore faulty, understanding of EM physics.
Once again, perhaps the question we should be trying to answer is not what was the beam, but why did ET expose the individuals to that beam. They clearly were not trying to kill them, or injure them for that matter. The relatively mild injuries those individuals sustained were likely just collateral damage as a result of thermal flux from their clothing. If ET wanted to truly injure them, I have no doubt they could have easily done so, and to a much greater extent than they did. ET clearly knew what they were doing. So why would they want to selectively heat someone’s clothing while they were wearing them if not to simply make it too uncomfortable for them to wear? And—college frat boy jokes aside—why would they want someone to feel uncomfortable wearing clothing unless they wanted to see, or observe, them out of their clothing? Perhaps this particular group of ET were new to our world at that time, and were just curious, and therefore wanted to see what these odd, ET-oid looking, creatures might look like under their artificial integuments, but miscalculated the human response to the unpleasant stimuli by assuming they would simply disrobe, as opposed to fleeing and hiding as they did. Just a thought
D.A.
Okay this is a long comment by you and I can’t reply to it all at the moment but regarding balloon gate: I discussed this a bit in my latest FCP but I did not address the issue you are raising. How will this affect the UAP/UFO conversation moving forward? I had other thoughts to share but I imagine I will come back to your question. I do not believe this is UAP related and I do suspect that China is moving into a new era of more aggressive posturing viz. the US. That’s my suspicion which I discussed in my Fireside Chat. But your question is a good one. Let me think about that.
The interesting thing about balloons; they are typically made of non-porous lightweight material, so the USG should not be concerned about locating debris at the bottom of Lake Huron, regardless of the depth. A good portion, if not all, of a balloon not carrying a heavier-than-air payload should be floating on the water’s surface. The difficulty will be in spotting something so small, if there were anything left of it after being blown out of the sky.
Another interesting thing about the relatively recent spate of small “balloon-like” UFOs: over the last year or so, I’ve seen two odd looking balloons myself, which I didn’t think much about because I assumed they were just balloons of some type—an “L” shaped one hovering about 50ft above the Garden State Parkway, which was maybe 10’ tall; and a small square one that flew at a horizontal trajectory about 75ft off the ground directly above my house in Toms River, NJ. Both were dark grey/black. Each one seemed odd for different reasons. Regarding the first balloon—it was just strange to see a 10’ black “L” hovering directly over the highway. It was hovering over the north bound lane, and I was driving in the southbound lane, so I didn’t get a good look at it.
I did, however, get a pretty good look at the one flying above my house. It looked like one of those square mylar balloons, except it was maybe 3ft wide and a dark solid grey, and was flying in a perfectly flat, horizontal trajectory at a perfectly even clip of about 20 MPH, even though there wasn’t a breeze that day, never mind a consistent 20 MPH wind. Also the balloon demonstrated no wabble or flutter, just perfectly still, and was flying straight up and down, perpendicular to the ground as if not affected by air resistance. I simply assumed that it must have been caught up in a consistent wind at the balloon’s altitude, and didn’t give it too much thought.
I’m not saying either of these balloons were not of this earth—just that each one struck me as something unusual at the time. I probably wouldn’t even be thinking of them now if it weren’t for recent events. The small balloon was also flying to the west in the direction of joint base McGuire/Dix/Lakehurst, which isn’t too far away, so there’s that too.
Just relaying a couple interesting balloon sightings of my own.
D.A.
Richard,
Two comments:
Comment 1
The 99 foot craft that was dismantled in sections, moved via army truck convoy and then reassembled by US military was Aztec UFO crash craft.
Actual dimension was 99.9 ft. diameter. UFO Crash at Aztec, A Well Kept Secret, by William Steinman, 1986, pgs.36 and 40.
Comment 2
5. Scientists believe they need to find a way to convert energy from a nuclear reactor directly into electric power.
This was very likely a true observation conveyed by Naval Intelligence to the Brazilian scientist. You seemed to be a bit puzzled at this bullet point – I have an explanation – although it is true that contemporary nuclear power plants do convert the heat of radioactive decay to electricity they cannot do it directly. They must instead do it through the production of steam from water that comes into contact with heat from reactor cores. This is a secondary method and somewhat primitive process compared to a more direct conversion of nuclear energy.
Dr. Vannevar Bush and other scientists realized that the huge amounts of energy required to power anti-gravitics energy fields would also require an efficient conversion from the on-board nuclear reactor source.
Thank you for this explanation, and you are right, I didn’t really grasp the science behind the statement.
It should be noted that the Air Force tried for many years to make a nuclear powered plane…they failed and finally gave up…so the on-board nuclear reactor approach may not be the correct one.
Therefore its possible that the nuclear reactor is not a nuclear reactor at all but instead something that generates energy fields directly that can also be diverted to neutralize inertia affects and planetary gravity fields. It may do this directly with no conversion necessary.
If this is true then the UAP propulsion device may also accept beamed energy from another source/craft and then utilize it to achieve instantaneous locomotion.