What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military?

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1596119025515.png
Article:
The Pentagon’s U.F.O. Program has been using unclassified slides like this to brief government officials on threats from Advanced Aerospace Vehicles — “including off-world” — and materials retrieved from crashes of unidentified phenomena.Credit...Leslie Kean


When asked about the words "off-world" in the above slide, writer Ralph Blumenthal said:
Article:
Ralph Blumenthal
Contributor, former Times reporter
July 28
@leadingfrombehind Off-world means not of this earth. We and our sources refrain from speculating on other questions beyond that.


But what does "not of this earth" mean? Regardless of the meaning, where does this definition come from? If we search the .gov and .mil domains for usages of the term "off-world" the most common usage seems to be, essentially "not on this Earth".

For example, NASA described a trek by the Mars rover (a human-made vehicle) as an "Off-World Driving Record." NOAA talks about satellite images as being "Returned from off-world." Military documents talk about "a Space Development Agency focused on all matters off-world, from procuring military satellites to defending U.S. spacecraft in orbit from attacks."

The most famous use of the term is in the 1982 dystopia Science Fiction film Bladerunner where giant screens advertise "a new life awaits you on the off-world colonies"
Metabunk 2020-07-30 07-47-19.jpg
But here again, off-world simply means off the planet earth, but of human origin.

Why would the military be concerned about unusual off-world craft - it's pretty simple: space warfare. Not war with aliens, but war carried out partially in space, i.e. off-world. The simplest form of this being anti-satellite technology, then space-based weapons, and then actually space-to-space warfare (like one spaceship attacking another). This is obviously something that is very likely to come to pass, and so something the military (now with a space-force) is very interested in.

Of course, we don't know who made that slide, or what they were believe, but the phrase "off-world" does not seem to indicate the military is interested in flying craft from other planets, just flying craft from this planet that operate in space, off-world.
 
Last edited:
The NYT's use of that slide is a bit dishonest. If it was part of an AATIP presentation, it likely came from Robert Bigelow's BAASS or Hal Puthoff, a subcontractor, both proponents of extraterrestrial visitation, spacecraft and more. The fact that this was part of a government briefing makes this interesting. But unless it's proven that it was influential to military policy, it means nothing and proves even less.
 
The fact that this was part of a government briefing makes this interesting. But unless it's proven that it was influential to military policy, it means nothing and proves even less.
Yeah, it's like them presenting Eric W. Davis as some kind of Pentagon official.
 
The slides are absolutely from our good friend Dr. Puthoff. http://www.ufojoe.net/hal-puthoff-transcript-transiitontalks

Here's his discussion of the slide in question


Well, the AATIP program had two concerns, two areas of threat that they were concerned about:

The obvious one of course: “What are these things?” Craft flying over the continental United States and we don’t know what they are. Possibly off-world, possibly some other country has got advanced technology. What is this all about? Now you might think that that would be the major threat. It turns out, that wasn’t the major threat they were concerned about.

The major threat they were concerned about is future threat. What happens if a potential, terrestrial adversary – say the Russians or the Chinese or whatever – achieves some significant breakthrough and develop game-changing, disruptive technologies based on their evaluations of the phenomena. Or maybe from sensor data? Or from crash-retrieved materials? That’s what they were really worried about. Of course, that’s what the intelligence community and defense establishment have to worry about. That’s their remit.
Content from External Source
That seems like la belle indifference thinking to me. The military is somehow utterly unconcerned that there are alien spaceships flying around, and are simply worried that the Russians will study them and develop weapons based on them.

That strangeness aside, I think it's probably safe to say that Puthoff did mean aliens when he said "off-world". But Puthoff isn't the military. He's just a part of the tiny UFO-industrial complex.
 
That seems like la belle indifference thinking to me. The military is somehow utterly unconcerned that there are alien spaceships flying around, and are simply worried that the Russians will study them and develop weapons based on them.

That strangeness aside, I think it's probably safe to say that Puthoff did mean aliens when he said "off-world". But Puthoff isn't the military. He's just a part of the tiny UFO-industrial complex.

Somebody needs to keep track of all their shenanigans, and thanks for being the only one to really stand up to this stuff Mick. They need their feet held to the fire and held hard because their claims are too profound to be the stuff of media hype and History Channel garbage.

Honestly, though, their story is continuously of this nature, that is, full of contradictions and illogical naratives. Tom says one thing, Elizondo another. It seems like nobody, not even the Senate Intel committee is willing to really dig and find out if this is a fraud. We are also bound to the "Its The Military" mentality, that we think that they wouldn't lie. Well there is no way around it, someone is lying. If it's off-world intelligence, they've lied to us for 70 years already. If it isn't aliens, they are coming darn close to lying now. Even Trump has weighed in on this stuff, as has Podesta, and Hillary Clinton. Is our government that far gone? Or are we about to get disclosure? Those are two extremes that are both concerning, and as the evidence stands, #1 is much much more likely.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's like them presenting Eric W. Davis as some kind of Pentagon official.
I really wish though that the military or government would be more careful when choosing their words in situations like this so as not to get the UFO community up in a tizzy. That only adds to their conspiracy theories. They want disclosure, but if the truth is that the disclosure information is not what they want or expect they wouldn't accept it anyway. They want aliens! :)
 
The NYT's use of that slide is a bit dishonest. If it was part of an AATIP presentation, it likely came from Robert Bigelow's BAASS or Hal Puthoff, a subcontractor, both proponents of extraterrestrial visitation, spacecraft and more. The fact that this was part of a government briefing makes this interesting. But unless it's proven that it was influential to military policy, it means nothing and proves even less.
What do you think causes this type of thinking? This belief in the government is hiding something or that aliens are visiting with no tangible evidence? That is more baffling to me. Robert Bigelow, Hal Puthoff and Eric Davies seem like intelligent people. Do they just have a blinding interest in this subject? To me they all seem borderline crazy.
 
John Greenewald over that The Black Vault has been exploring this issue:
Article:
On The Trail of the AATIP UFO PowerPoint Slide
by JOHN GREENEWALD on AUGUST 5, 2020

...
today, in a statement given directly to The Black Vault, the Pentagon denies the use of that slide in any official capacity and says “off world vehicles” do not fit in to the official position of the U.S. government.

“That slide was not used by DoD in any briefing on this subject and does not represent the department’s position,” Pentagon spokesperson Susan Gough said to The Black Vault in an e-mailed statement. “The slide appears to be one used by a subcontractor who had worked under the AAWSAP contract, in briefings by the subcontractor after AATIP ended.”
...
Despite the stark differences in claims, Elizondo and the Pentagon do seem to agree on at least one thing. There is no official definition for “Off World Vehicles.” Both parties were asked about official definitions, since in the world of the DOD, most everything has an “official” interpretation, as indicated by the 376-page “DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.” (Which, for the record, does not include “off world”.) When asked about the official stance of what “off world vehicle technology really meant, Elizondo said, “There is no official definition in the DoD lexicon that I am aware of defining the term ‘off world’.” The Pentagon stated the same, with Gough telling The Black Vault, “’Off-world’ is not an official term or designation in DoD.” At least, it appears all parties agree on that point.
 
It seems pretty clear they are sliding aliens into the information gaps caused by default military secrecy in relation to their research into the capabilities of domestic and foreign aircraft and spacecraft. Also because the research is highly speculative very broad terms are in use to cover the array of possible technologies (drones/planes/missiles/balloons.) Further leaving room for aliens to be included as a possibility.

Because the US government is confirming the things they have to confirm but is of course silent on other matters, the alien theories seems to have US government backing by default, unless however you really look into the slight differences in the terms used.
 
"Covid19 Bill started a 180 day countdown for UFO disclosure"

Didn't we (the taxpayers) already pay Elizondo and Bigelow to do this analysis? Now we're gonna pay for it again!? I can't believe how in debt we are putting the youth of America.
 
I don't believe it either. Got a comparison of the cost of that to the other sources of the national deficit?
i'm not interested in a comparison to welfare programs. My comment is about paying again for something already paid for. I realize 22 million is a drop in the bucket, but lots of drops add up over time.

Article:
According to The Washington Post, the program spent at least $22 million "for the purpose of collecting and analyzing a wide range of 'anomalous aerospace threats' ranging from advanced aircraft fielded by traditional U.S. adversaries to commercial drones to possible alien encounters."
 
I'm not interested in a comparison to welfare programs.
Well, then compare it to military spending!
Article:
The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), said in the comment that it “directs the [director of national intelligence], in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies … to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena.”

The report must address “observed airborne objects that have not been identified” and should include a “detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by: a. geospatial intelligence; b. signals intelligence; c. human intelligence; and d. measurement and signals intelligence,” the committee said.

The report must also contain “[a] detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace … and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries.”

To me, this sounds like the committee is asking for a report on information that has already been collected; I don't imagine that's going to cost several millions. And it sounds like the committee really wants to know if these sightings relate to military threats, which makes this spending military in nature.
 
Primary source:
Article:
Committee Comments
[...]
Advanced Aerial Threats

The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations. However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.

Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena (also known as “anomalous aerial vehicles”), including observed airborne objects that have not been identified.

The Committee further directs the report to include:
  1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force;
  2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by:
    a. geospatial intelligence;
    b. signals intelligence;
    c. human intelligence; and
    d. measurement and signals intelligence;
  3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace;
  4. A detailed description of an interagency process for ensuring timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information;
  5. Identification of an official accountable for the process described in paragraph 4;
  6. Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to national security, and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries;
  7. Identification of any incidents or patterns that indicate a potential adversary may have achieved breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could put United States strategic or conventional forces at risk;
    and
  8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of data, enhanced research and development, and additional funding and other resources.
The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
 
Well, then compare it to military spending!
why?

To me, this sounds like the committee is asking for a report on information that has already been collected; I don't imagine that's going to cost several millions
That's a fair opinion. My opinion is that's what Elizondo was supposed to have already done.

which makes this spending military in nature
obviously the spending is military in Nature.
 
Primary source:
Article:
Committee Comments
[...]
Advanced Aerial Threats

The Committee supports the efforts of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon Task Force at the Office of Naval Intelligence to standardize collection and reporting on unidentified aerial phenomenon, any links they have to adversarial foreign governments, and the threat they pose to U.S. military assets and installations. However, the Committee remains concerned that there is no unified, comprehensive process within the Federal Government for collecting and analyzing intelligence on unidentified aerial phenomena, despite the potential threat. The Committee understands that the relevant intelligence may be sensitive; nevertheless, the Committee finds that the information sharing and coordination across the Intelligence Community has been inconsistent, and this issue has lacked attention from senior leaders.

Therefore, the Committee directs the DNI, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of such other agencies as the Director and Secretary jointly consider relevant, to submit a report within 180 days of the date of enactment of the Act, to the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena (also known as “anomalous aerial vehicles”), including observed airborne objects that have not been identified.

The Committee further directs the report to include:
  1. A detailed analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena data and intelligence reporting collected or held by the Office of Naval Intelligence, including data and intelligence reporting held by the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force;
  2. A detailed analysis of unidentified phenomena data collected by:
    a. geospatial intelligence;
    b. signals intelligence;
    c. human intelligence; and
    d. measurement and signals intelligence;
  3. A detailed analysis of data of the FBI, which was derived from investigations of intrusions of unidentified aerial phenomena data over restricted United States airspace;
  4. A detailed description of an interagency process for ensuring timely data collection and centralized analysis of all unidentified aerial phenomena reporting for the Federal Government, regardless of which service or agency acquired the information;
  5. Identification of an official accountable for the process described in paragraph 4;
  6. Identification of potential aerospace or other threats posed by the unidentified aerial phenomena to national security, and an assessment of whether this unidentified aerial phenomena activity may be attributed to one or more foreign adversaries;
  7. Identification of any incidents or patterns that indicate a potential adversary may have achieved breakthrough aerospace capabilities that could put United States strategic or conventional forces at risk;
    and
  8. Recommendations regarding increased collection of data, enhanced research and development, and additional funding and other resources.
The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.
It seems as though they are primarily concerned with the consolidated organization of data collected on UAP's and whether or not one of our enemies has us at some crippling disadvantage here. Will the UAPTF try to indicate that they do in fact have info about tech that isn't man-made? It's been pretty unclear whether or not Elizondo, whom I sort of regard as a super inconsistent liar, in particular is still associated w/this effort, so I'm not sure if I'd even trust them if they were to make such a claim.

Thoughts on what the report will reflect and if it will provide convincing evidence of alien activity?
 
Back
Top