Tim Phillips lends credence to the existence of anomalous black triangle UFOs

I don't want to post a list paraphrasing what Tim said in the new Podcast I linked which I have done elsewhere, because I think it's against the rules here to paraphrase.?
But he does say some interesting things
 
I wonder if with all the jet refueling occuring in the middle east these past days a new flap of reports of giant black triangles will emerge.

1750200011837.png
 
Listening now. This was a nice shout out to Mick.

12:51
External Quote:
Another thing we're trying to do is standardize tools. We actually evaluate, and some of the analysts, and AARO, actually some of the tools that you created, on some of our cases.
 
Weird how Tim said there was a person that came to AARO and wanted payment for his knowledge and materials or he was going to take it to a foreign country.

That was at 42:52 in
 
Around 11.30 he mentions scientists on Long Island as an inspiration for some of their equipment, is he referring to the Tedesco brothers?
Probably. The idea of a mobile sensor suite is a good one, even if the Tedesco's execution is less than ideal.
It's not a new idea, of course, think about tornado chasing vehicles, like in Twister. Or McGowan's OSIRIS. I think there might have been one in Close Encounters.
 
Last edited:
Interesting interview, especially the details about Nimitz and Gimbal.

I was disappointed that he heaped such praise on SCU's work, given that it is so consistently terrible (i.e b.s.). That undermined my confidence in his assessment of other things. But still an interesting discussion, especially when it came to the inner bureaucratic workings of AARO.
 
As I reached 00:54:32's "To defend everything is to defend nothing", I was reminded of his earlier indication that (paraphrase warning) he wanted to destigmatise reporing: he wanted more reports to look at. That struck me at the time, because it showed a bit of a disregard for signal to noise ratio - adding lots more lower-quality signal does not improve your ability to extract signal from noise, as you're adding way more noise. Almost as if looking at everything is looking at nothing. Which might be a concept he is actually aware of.

But I agree, so far he doesn't seem disingenuous at all. Were I being disingenuous I might describe him as a little tunnel-visioned, but more realistically he's just focussed: he seems to have about the right level of paranoia - as plenty of people are out to get you - for his job, from a practical military perspective. And a realistic understanding of how bloated government works. Alas there was one question that he did fail to answer, though, which alas Mick didn't press him on, and I'd have liked to have had a proper answer to the actual question asked - that was the response where he just diverted into not following the UAP social media. The question wasn't about the social media aspect at all.

...half an hour left...
 
Interesting interview, especially the details about Nimitz and Gimbal.

I was disappointed that he heaped such praise on SCU's work, given that it is so consistently terrible (i.e b.s.). That undermined my confidence in his assessment of other things. But still an interesting discussion, especially when it came to the inner bureaucratic workings of AARO.
I am of the general opinion that this type of problem solving is more difficult the less people and less variety of people you have looking at it, this forum and in turn the wider public, have the best track record at investigating and solving UFO videos.

SCU are seemingly biased and bad at it, AARO are bad at it IMO.

Mick covers it well in his synopsis of the Chilean UFO which was an airliner.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/curated-crowdsourcing-in-ufo-investigations/
 
Last edited:
UAPs, Disinfo & Controlled Chaos – A Strategic Psyop?


With guys like Elizondo, Mellon, and now Tim Phillips stepping forward, here's a theory: What if the U.S. gov intentionally fed false UAP data to some of its own intelligence officers?


Think about it. If a core black program has real exotic tech or crash retrievals, it would:


  • Keep the circle extremely small (need-to-know)
  • Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS
  • Confuse adversaries by projecting "maybe we have alien tech"
  • Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues

Phillips mentioning a "hazing" operation might hint at this: some officers were baited with partial truths to see who'd bite — or leak. It's a perfect intelligence play:


Everyone knows something, no one knows everything.

Result? Public confusion. Gov insiders split. Foreign spies guessing. And the real tech — if it exists — stays buried in the noise.
 
Think about it. If a core black program has real exotic tech or crash retrievals, it would:
  • Keep the circle extremely small (need-to-know)
  • Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS
  • Confuse adversaries by projecting "maybe we have alien tech"
  • Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues
I bet you don't know any secret program ever that was run on these principles. The more plausible version:
  • Keep the circle extremely small (need-to-know)
  • Foil potential leakers by not telling them more than they need to know
  • Confuse adversaries by not telling them anything
  • Avoid/deflect media attention
We know that there is nobody who has a tale of "truth mixed with BS".
The DoD has never publicly projected "maybe we have alien tech" as a strategy (Roswell coverup is the only official instance I recall, and it was short-lived).

Please don't buy into a conspiracy theory born from imagination but not facts!
 
At 30:00, Tim Phillips says DARPA was testing a "lightweight ISR system" at the time of the Nimitz sightings.
PJ Hughes alleges he was involved in a classified sensor test aboard the EC-2 Hawkeye during the event.

Given that the Nimitz was also testing its upgraded CEC capability at the time, the "third-party testing stuff on the cheap" theory must be a good bet to explain Fravor/Dietrich's Tic Tac eyeball.

Phillips' use of "lightweight ISR system" makes me wonder if he is confirming many people's suspicions about the visual similarities between ISR Aerostat and Tic Tacs.

More balloons?
 
Do we have an example of an ISR* Aerostat to compare to the Tic Tac?

*Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, to expand the acronym. Always best to type things in full, especially the first time we mention them.
 
At 30:00, Tim Phillips says DARPA was testing a "lightweight ISR system" at the time of the Nimitz sightings.
PJ Hughes alleges he was involved in a classified sensor test aboard the EC-2 Hawkeye during the event.

Given that the Nimitz was also testing its upgraded CEC capability at the time, the "third-party testing stuff on the cheap" theory must be a good bet to explain Fravor/Dietrich's Tic Tac eyeball.

Phillips' use of "lightweight ISR system" makes me wonder if he is confirming many people's suspicions about the visual similarities between ISR Aerostat and Tic Tacs.

More balloons?

Do we have an example of an ISR* Aerostat to compare to the Tic Tac?

*Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, to expand the acronym. Always best to type things in full, especially the first time we mention them.

It was intresting to hear Tim Phillips talk of WASP - which Mick explained was the Wide Area Surveillance Payload. When they talk of these types of systems I think more of the P = Persistent. These tend to be large aerostats use to provude overwatch for military bases , like the one that captured the 'jellyfish' uap.


However - the WASP can be the Winch Aerostat Small Platform

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnolo...system-selected-for-us-army-multi-unit-award/

I wonder have they ever tried launching something like this from a submarine?
 
I wonder have they ever tried launching something like this from a submarine?

Since the 50's at least- Project Genetrix had a known sub. launch element.

Balloons to explain the pilot tic tac sightings, NEMESIS (Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors) and/or LIPF's to explain the sensor tracks and the video could just be straight up misinterpretation as already suggested.

If you had an ECCM system that could produce ghost fleets- the newest integrated CEC with unarmed planes and unwitting pilots might seem like a test opportunity you just cant refuse.
 
Listen to Steven Greenstreet in the X group talk he did after speaking to Tim Phillips.
Listen below between 51:00 and 53:00

He says DARPA came on board the Princeton to get the tapes during the Tic Tac event.
He said the Princeton had picked up the small DARPA drones they were testing in swarms
I don't know how much of that is from Tim vs assumption about WASP. Don't know
That said, the WASP small drone I linked above, was developed by DARPA. Whether it's actually even the drone(if it was a drone) in question, don't know

https://x.com/i/spaces/1OwGWXOONbWJQ
 
Last edited:
Listening to the Tim Philips stuff I get the feeling that AARO was setup to investigate UFOs on the basis of the TTSA etc stuff, but then people like Philips basically found out there was much more drone activity and potential drone activity that was getting lost in the UFO noise than anyone probably realised and of course that's now obviously a key focus and the AARO seems to be a cross agency drone investigation dept, turn up work out if its drones or not and if it is then investigate/refer.
 
Listen to Steven Greenstreet in the X group talk he did after speaking to Tim Phillips.
Listen below between 51:00 and 53:00

He says DARPA came on board the Princeton to get the tapes during the Tic Tac event.
He said the Princeton had picked up the small DARPA drones they were testing in swarms
I don't know how much of that is from Tim vs assumption about WASP. Don't know
That said, the WASP small drone I linked above, was developed by DARPA. Whether it's actually even the drone(if it was a drone) in question, don't know

https://x.com/i/spaces/1OwGWXOONbWJQ
MORE ON WASP HERE:
Source: https://x.com/MiddleOfMayhem/status/1935339002539950490


Transcript:

Steven Greenstreet:
Does the Wasp look like a Tic Tac?

Tim Phillips:
No, actually it doesn't. It was a small airplane, a couple meter airplane. If you look at it, it was pretty transparent - balsa wood and foam. Battery powered. Had ISR. It was actually used at Anwar Province during the Battle of Fallujah. You can probably go online and see it. It's been declassified, but it's called the Wasp.

But that was one of those stories. Part of the whole myth of what happened, these strange guys in black that landed on the Princeton and hauled off a bunch of kit. Well, that happened.

But it had nothing to do with UAP. Now, we don't think, based off the radar cross-section of that little UAS, that the F-18s could have picked it up. However, we do think the Princeton could have picked it up. And that's why we were so eager to get that Princeton radar data to see it. Could that account for some of the anomalies that were reported in the Nimitz case?
 
a comment from Mick's intercview that reflected my own thoughts

External Quote:
All of these guys are exactly the same in these interviews. They talk non stop to control the conversation and get out what they want. I've been watching for 37 minutes so far and Mick has been able to say about 2 words so far.
Especially when the SCU got mentioned..
 
I don't know. Kevin Day said they appeared right about San Clemente Isl at 28K feet doing 100 knots

If he is accurate with that, then it doesn't sound like the WASP. Maybe many things were going on that day

Source(It's cued up) : youtu.be/PRgoisHRmUE?si=OuG4Qi8XlklOl9V_&t=331

They do test small experimental drones off San Clemente Isl as has been discussed in the past. And they have a drone airstrip/base there.
They also fire off Drone Target missiles there for the fleet to practice defence etc.
Actually there is a lot going on at San Clemente including Threat Radar Systems and all sorts of things
A lot of Electronic Warfare stuff there also as per below:

1750258420889.png
 
Last edited:
It was intresting to hear Tim Phillips talk of WASP - which Mick explained was the Wide Area Surveillance Payload. When they talk of these types of systems I think more of the P = Persistent. These tend to be large aerostats use to provude overwatch for military bases , like the one that captured the 'jellyfish' uap.



However - the WASP can be the Winch Aerostat Small Platform

https://www.unmannedsystemstechnolo...system-selected-for-us-army-multi-unit-award/


I wonder have they ever tried launching something like this from a submarine?
I meant to bring this up before, but in the 2000s the Navy was looking for ways to justify, er, repurpose the expensive ballistic missile submarine fleet that was no longer needed to deter the former Soviet Union and I know there was at least one press event here in San Diego demonstrating using a former boomer to covertly deliver SEALs.

And 2004 was apparently when the U.S. Army first deployed surveillance aerostats from Lockheed Martin for use in Iraq, so the technology was definitely starting to be available. https://investors.lockheedmartin.co...ockheed-martin-aerostat-surveillance-systems/

I mean, you wouldn't custom-build a stealthy nuclear missile-launching submarine to deploy a tethered aerostat in the middle of the ocean that could give away your position, but if that's what you have handy and you want to see if it can be done... plus to disappear you just have the aerostat drop of its sensor package/ballast into the ocean and the aerostat itself floats off at high speed.
 
a comment from Mick's intercview that reflected my own thoughts

External Quote:
All of these guys are exactly the same in these interviews. They talk non stop to control the conversation and get out what they want. I've been watching for 37 minutes so far and Mick has been able to say about 2 words so far.
Especially when the SCU got mentioned..
that's good interview technique, though.
Mick's job here is to get his guest talking, not to present himself.
As long as he got Phillips to talk about what he wanted him to talk about, it's all good (with the exception of the question that @FatPhil avoided revealing...)
 
that's good interview technique, though.
Mick's job here is to get his guest talking, not to present himself.
As long as he got Phillips to talk about what he wanted him to talk about, it's all good (with the exception of the question that @FatPhil avoided revealing...)
I usually let people talk, and they often end up saying something interesting.
 
I usually let people talk, and they often end up saying something interesting.
You don't do it quite as devastatingly as Louis Theroux, though - leaving them a nice big hole to fill, which sometimes they trip up into. Philiips wasn't naive enough to make any slips, though, he seemed far too well rehearsed, as I presumed he's had to say most of this to hundreds of people historically.
 
UAPs, Disinfo & Controlled Chaos – A Strategic Psyop?


With guys like Elizondo, Mellon, and now Tim Phillips stepping forward, here's a theory: What if the U.S. gov intentionally fed false UAP data to some of its own intelligence officers?


Think about it. If a core black program has real exotic tech or crash retrievals, it would:


  • Keep the circle extremely small (need-to-know)
  • Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS
  • Confuse adversaries by projecting "maybe we have alien tech"
  • Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues

Phillips mentioning a "hazing" operation might hint at this: some officers were baited with partial truths to see who'd bite — or leak. It's a perfect intelligence play:




Result? Public confusion. Gov insiders split. Foreign spies guessing. And the real tech — if it exists — stays buried in the noise.
To preface one part, there is no such thing as "core black" or other variations like "deep black" programs. These are terms made up by people resting on the public not understanding proper terminology of the sort to try and perceptively raise credence.

So, as for "PSYOP" - no. PSYOP is a specific practice. At the most, what we have with these events when they do occur, are a mix of either counterintelligence, OPSEC, and/or DISO.
PSYOP is a form of mass communication within (certain nations, important distinction) military communication practices. CI and OPSEC are not communication fields at all. Deception Activities are blended communication functions, although, explicitly, not mass communication. These can be supported by PSYOP folks, but we have no indicators of such ever occurring at all.


Now, when we speak to the above three categories of practices;
-DISO does not seek to target persons, at all. Rather, it targets adversarial intelligence sensors and sensory aides.
-Offensive CI can target individual persons, including public persons. In any of these cases, it would relate to preventing, disrupting, or degrading hostile intelligence activities, not the general public.
-OPSEC is focused on information itself. It does consider threats and resulting risks, but any sort of messaging or etc would be carried out by another.

Using the understandings from any of these 3 fields, none of the 4 objectives above make much sense.
"Keep the circle extremely small" - This would fall under either OPSEC or CI. In implementation terms, this would be achieved through things program compartmentalization, bigot lists, controlled access, etc. Releasing false information does not inherently benefit this and is unlikely to be done for said reason.

"Discredit potential leakers by mixing truth with BS" - This hits the issues with not understanding the fields of reference. None of those target the public like that, this only works in the public knowledge context. Intelligence services generally do not care about woo if you have access they want, such is what analysis is for. This is why the Soviets for example would explicitly send officers to UFO conventions and etc to try and pick up references from people working on R&D programs in the military.
Now, if adjusted, this can 'work' in some ways. For example, using proper references, you could use false planted information as such so if that person is recruited or leaks, it *degrades the quality of information* which in turn can degrade adversarial intelligence processes.

"Confuse adversaries by projecting 'maybe we have alien tech'" - This was done so much during the Cold War that it does not really get serious traction with the specific folks we're talking about and involves a much larger wall on emerging science developments at the time spurring prior occurances even 'working' (eg Soviets research into psychotronics, which spurred all the US para- developments wrt the new age military science era). To break this line down properly would involve a whole wall of its own too, it's not as issued as the others in ideation but goes back to the point of it being an explicit need to actually use related practices understandings rather than pop-culture references.

"Use media attention as a smoke screen while real R&D continues" - This is a thing for some countries in their related understandings, but at least for the US this is not really a thing in that regard. If it ever does come up, it's not as a formal objective, but more a pocket idea from a commander (which would then be formalized by referenced practitioners).

Also no hate but your post seems like it was written by AI. There is not a single public AI that uses proper training data for these topics and instead are inundated with training data that roots with the pop-culture understandings of these ideas rather than actual source materials - I would not recommend using AI to answer these sorts of questions.
 
MORE ON WASP HERE:

Capture.JPG

This might be relevant to our thinking about Tim Phillips' familiarity with some of the aeronautical tech he chooses to discuss:

Unless that's a really big pencil, the Wasp shown by Greenstreet is nowhere near a couple of metres (39") in any dimension.

It seems likely that "Wasp" is the title used by AeroVironment (sometimes styled Avinc or AV) for several different UAV progressively developed for a DARPA program; this (outdated?) AV webpage quotes a wingspan of 41 cm (approx. 16") and mass 275g:
waspiii_webimage_bg.jpg


The current AeroVironment Wasp III is larger,
External Quote:
Wingspan: 28.5 inches (72.3 cm) Length: 10 inches (25.4 cm)
-USAF factsheet dated 14 September 2011, https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104480/wasp-iii/,
but still considerably less than half the size Phillips suggests; see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Wasp_III

External Quote:
It was a small airplane, a couple meter airplane. If you look at it, it was pretty transparent - balsa wood and foam. Battery powered. Had ISR. It was actually used at Anwar Province during the Battle of Fallujah. You can probably go online and see it. It's been declassified, but it's called the Wasp.
Tim Phillips, quoted by Greenstreet on "X" (link).

It is possible that prototype Wasp MAVs were used in Fallujah, 2004, but this would pre-date any official procurement for the US military AFAIK:
External Quote:

AeroVironment began to build the Wasp in 1998 under a contract with DARPA. The Wasp recorded 1hr 47mins of endurance in August 2002, making it a micro class UAV.
In December 2006, the Wasp was chosen as the micro air vehicle (MAV) for the BATMAV (Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle) programme by the US Air Force.
AeroVironment was awarded a $19.3m contract by the US Marine Corps in November 2007 to build the Wasp MAV adhering to the BATMAV programme. These Wasp UAVs are deployed at the Platoon level...
Airforce Technology website

Tim Phillips might have been thinking of the Lockheed Martin Desert Hawk hand-launched UAV which was in service with US services at that time, and which had a largely styrofoam fuselage and wings. With a wingspan of 1.32m/ 52" (Wikipedia), Phillips' description seems closer to Desert Hawk than Wasp.

Other than its organic camera, the lightweight Wasp has no useful payload capacity. This makes it a strange choice for testing swarm capabilities; the word "wasp" might evoke ideas of swarms, but the real world AeroVironment Wasp and its control systems were not designed to provide a swarm capability or to carry munitions.

Tim Phillips' former service, the USMC, announced in 2023 it had retired the Wasp UAV in favour of a quadcopter (Wikipedia, last line of article).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top