Film And 'Aerial Hycon 73B'

So, this is the thing that was used in U-2 recon flights in the early Sixties. They used wet-plate high resolution film made from ESTAR Base. And these sorts of cameras can film at incredibly high speeds and with extraordinary precision measurements if they are land-mounted as a so-called 'cinetheodolite.' 

Now... here is the thing though. Sure the film can be - in fact has to be - processed very quickly from when the exposures were shot. But, when it comes to the detailed, in-depth analysis of the processed negatives, all of that work was done in CIA highly private facilities, well, I don't know all the places but I do know some of the places, and I've mentioned them before. Highly skilled people at special divisions of Eastman-Kodak 'High Altitude Labs' did the work. And maybe some people at Boston University did as well.

A modern cinetheodolite.

The NASA astronaut Gordon Cooper was rather famous or infamous, if you like, for having set up an Askania Cinetheodolite system at Edwards Air Force Base in 1957 - which subsequently managed to capture a flying saucer object that made no sound landing and taking off. The shot film was processed into its film negatives and Cooper was told by the Pentagon to make no prints of it, but to send the whole lot by courier in a locked courier pouch to them. He viewed the negatives, not having been told not to look at them, and he has on many occasions said that what was on the film confirmed what his ground people who set up the camera system told him, which was that they had seen and filmed a flying saucer that particular early morning in question.

And... the film has never been able to be tracked down since. Although there is no doubt that it was shot, processed, and sent to the Pentagon.

But I'll tell you where it is - that is to say, where it went and what happened next.

These kinds of films go to CIA special photographic analysis people - the same people I mentioned in some paragraphs above. Firstly, because they were the best at the job, secondly because all the significant classified U-2 film went to them (since CIA ran all the U-2 projects at the time) and thirdly, because this Cooper film being to do with 'unusual aerial phenomena that had been filmed and treated as classified material' could have been 'captured' into the CIA 'intellectual property territoriality,' if I might put it that way. 

Now what did they do with it?

F-35 over Edwards Air Base.

I'll tell you what a smart person would have done with it, assuming they had no previous knowledge of what the 'strange objects' were - a smart person would have set up more cameras all over the place everywhere they had any indication might be the kind of place these things were 'appearing;' at least, especially like this one - at an actual Air Force Base!

The common 'theory' has always been something along the lines of: See? The US had this secret advanced aircraft R&D program and when Cooper filmed one of these objects, the CIA just took his film and 'disappeared it.'

Well now you see, that wouldn't be right, because if they had this stuff at all themselves, why did they let Francis Powers get shot down in a high risk mission when they could have just silently flown in a flying saucer thingy and even landed it close to where they wanted to film something, and then silently and at ridiculously high speed, fly the thing back out again?

Nah. They never had anything like it. 

So they never just 'buried the film' because they never had any reason of their own secrecy, to do that. What they did was what smart people would have done, namely, set up more cameras and shoot more film.

So the question to ask Ratcliffe today is, (Part A) 'Does the Pentagon have ten years of film showing absolutely no further instances of UFOs like the initial one Cooper filmed at Edwards? (Part B) Did the CIA analyze the first film and what analysis did they make? And, (Part C) Does the Pentagon have ten years of film showing many incidents similar to the one that Gordon Cooper's ground people filmed in 1957?

And if the answer to Part C is 'yes,' then, what did they do about it and/or what happened next if anything?

There were a lot of great pilots, but this was certainly
one of the best - John Young. Passed away in 2018,
at 87 years of age.

Because as of now, today, we have a Part D as well, being that Navy has also got film of the same thing but very recently filmed.

So anyway, I happen to know the full and complete answer to all parts of what is essentially, just one question. And there is nothing I can say about that. At the moment.

...I just had to delete about seven or eight paragraphs that came next!

Anyway. I'll try my best.

And this is not the place to go into details.

NASA is scientists and engineers and doctors and academics and technicians, and some accountants and a few politicians masquerading as managers and program directors.

CIA, on the other hand, believe it or not, is filled with Christians; they are literally religious people and not only because they pretended to be that just to insert themselves into the Serbian and the Croatian communities in Yugoslavia that one time. There are two and a half (roughly) billion adherents to Christianity on the planet today.

There most certainly are atheists in the CIA, too, but there are absolutely zero agnostics, and I'll tell you why. These people - all of them - spend the whole of their lives learning things, every-thing, things. They know it all, I'm not being funny, because really, they pretty much do. And, they are experts at making judgments about what they read and see - so they either have, on the basis of what they've read, decided there is no God, or, that there is. The baseline of their general knowledge is so high in reality, and also they never would allow themselves the fault of it not being adequately high at minimum, so you see, they are compelled, psychologically within themselves, to 'come to a judgment;' come to a decision.

For years and years every man and his dog opined that when we met ET, it would confront and challenge religious beliefs; it doesn't. It makes people genuinely scared, especially when the real person in front of them is scary cool! So either this is a literal demon, or a demonic entity masquerading as a humanoid person, or a 'fallen angel' - as the typical pop religious paranoid raving has it. Or it's an alien person from far far away at another location, another planetary system or something, just really far away. Who has come here, for some reason, that we don't know about other than what we have various speculations about, which 'they' (the 'others') never confirm or deny.

Jesus, being part Egyptian, drinks beer too, you know!

If it is a demon, this does not, confront or in any way challenge typical religious beliefs. In fact that buttresses the paranoid ideas and fears.

This is what got Claudie Haignere into a spot of bother back a bit - she really got a touch freaked out there.

So I am going to give you all, atheists, agnostics and believers -, the exact same 'advice,' Saint Paul did, way back a long time ago: 'Do not let anyone envious, and... ...intruding into those messages which you have been given access to, which he has not seen, vainly confident in his Earthly mind, force you into things different to what you yourself already know but yet cannot disclose.'