Dmitry Orlov posted this earlier - about the new Oreshnik hypersonic MIRV weapon first deployed in Ukraine on Nov. 21st.:

"Dec 15 07:15
Russia's "Oreshnik": not nuclear but atomic

Take a copper coil, mount it on a shaft and connect both ends to brushes sliding on ring contacts connected to an ammeter. Spin up the coil using a high speed electric motor, then abruptly stop it. At that exact moment, the ammeter will record a short but perfectly detectable pulse of electric current. Where does this current come from, given that there is nothing in this setup that produces an electromotive force?
The answer is that it comes from electron inertia. In a metal, electrons can be figuratively imagined to form an electron liquid sloshing around between the atomic nuclei of the metal's crystal lattice. When the coil is spun up, they gain speed together with the protons and the neutrons forming the atomic nuclei. Unlike the nuclei, they are not bound to the crystal lattice and can travel some distance by inertia after the object is abruptly stopped. (For those who forgot, inertia is mass times velocity: p=mv.) Since electrons are (negatively) charged, they generate an electric current when they move. This is what the ammeter registers during when the rotation of the coil is stopped.
It doesn't take much electron motion to produce a large effect. At an electric current density of 10 amperes per square millimeter, the electrons drift through a copper wire at just 1 millimeter per second, but this is sufficient to melt the wire. Now imagine the effect if the speed is not 1 millimeter but 3 kilometers per second (or Mach 10), which is 3000000 times faster, as is the case when the warhead of an Oreshnik missile slams into the ground. Hard to imagine?
Here is a hint: the metal will explode.
But that's not all.
The stability of a metal crystal lattice is preserved by the equilibrium of the Coulomb forces between the positive ions of the atomic nuclei and the surrounding negatively charged "electron liquid" of free electrons. Now imagine that all the free electrons have escaped. What happens to the atomic nuclei of the metal once the force holding them within the crystal structure disappears is that they all begin to repel each other and an explosion occurs.
Around a century ago it was noticed that when a fast-flying lead bullet or shell hits steel armor, it releases an amount of heat many times greater than the kinetic energy of the projectile (which is half the mass times its velocity squared, E_k=1/2 mv^2) — enough heat to burn a hole right through a steel plate. The reason for this anomaly is the same: electron inertia.
The binding energy in the crystal lattice of metals is approximately twice as large as that released during the explosive oxidation of TNT. At first glance, the explosion should not be much larger than that produced by a conventional explosive — about twice as large. The difference is that the time it takes to release this energy is hundreds of times shorter than during the chemical oxidation reaction in TNT and the energy from it is much more concentrated. Because of this, the destructive power of a Coulomb explosion can be 1000 times greater than that of a conventional explosive. Of course, this is not a nuclear explosion: no atomic nuclei are in any way damaged during this experiment. But it is comparable in its effects, which are much greater than what can be achieved using TNT.
For a bit of perspective, consider that 1 kg of uranium-235 can in theory (if every single atom of it undergoes nuclear fission) result in an explosion equivalent to 20 million kg of TNT. In reality, uranium is never enriched to 100% U-235 (anything above 90% is considered weapons-grade) and only a few percent of the U-235 have time to participate in a nuclear chain reaction before the whole contraption blows up. More realistically, a 1 kg nuclear charge is equivalent to about a million kg of TNT (or 1 kiloton). Meanwhile, 1 kg of metal in a Coulomb explosion will release energy equivalent to about a thousand kg of TNT (or 1 tonne). Nevertheless, these are still huge numbers.
And now we can address the question of what Oreshnik most likely is. Here is what has been publicly announced about it:
Warhead temperature: 4000ºC
Speed: Mach 10 (2.5–3 km/s)
Mass of warhead: ~1.5 tonnes
Perusing Dmitry Mendeleev's Periodic Table of Elements we find just one candidate for warhead metal: tungsten. It melts at 3422ºC and boils at 5555ºC. Taking the mass of the warhead (which, we assume for the sake of simplicity, consists entirely of a single shaped piece of tungsten) at 1,500 kg, it produces the equivalent of 1,500,000 kg of TNT or 1,5 kilotons — a respectable amount for a small tactical nuke.
But there is more: unlike a nuke, which explodes prior to impact (or it smashes into little bits and just makes a big mess) and expends only some of its energy on producing a destructive shockwave while much of the rest radiates out as heat, heating the atmosphere, the stratosphere and outer space, the tungsten warhead penetrates the ground to a maximum depth given its momentum (E_k = 1,613 kg of TNT) and only then does it explode, producing the equivalent of a very short highly localized and intense earthquake. The effect at ground zero is that the ground and anything on it or in it is turned to fine dust. This is what was reported to have happened at Uralmash factory near Dniepropetrovsk, which the Russians had used as an Oreshnik test range.
Thus, Oreshnik is not a nuclear device, since no atomic nuclei are in any way damaged by its operation. It is, however, an atomic device because the basis of its explosive power is not chemistry (oxidation of TNT or some other explosive) but the atomic physics of a Coulomb explosion.
While this part of the Oreshnik story can be puzzled out based on the available evidence, other parts of it remain enigmatic. Specifically, it remains a well guarded secret how Oreshnik can precisely maneuver its warheads as they approach the target. Another well guarded secret is how the warhead manages to penetrate the atmosphere at Mach 10 without burning up. Nobody else has anything even remotely similar to these two technological advances and the Russian military is unlikely to divulge them any time soon — at least not before coming up with an even more awesome weapon.
(Hat tip to Lanov.)" The yield in KT he's claiming is way stronger than our estimates by a factor of 750x-1500x.

Mayor Melham in NJ:

- First "sightings" started Nov. 18
- "Sightings" have happened every single night, dawn to dusk, lasting 6-7 hours
- Reports range from 4-180 per night

https://twitter.com/gipple_taylor/status/1867001776282669120

- Up to 6 ft diameter
- Avoid detection by traditional methods
- Lights go off at times
- FBI is the lead
- Sunday: 60 drones were "hovering over those reservoirs"

Unusual activity reportedly over Barksdale AFB just minutes ago. Witness's name/address is in a DM:

"I took this 15 minutes ago over Barksdale AFB at 1830 Central Time. Located near West Gate of Base. In 26 years I haven’t seen air craft this low or in base space like this.. Yes it had sound. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barksdale…

Notes from the Frank Scully files (AHC Box 10 ff5). Wright Field misspelled "right field". Dr. G was a composite of 8 scientists: 1 assigned to "Right Field". Returned to DC pronto.
Next a call with a Lockheed photographer over what's going on there "saucer-wise".
#ufotwitter There are piles of documents like this at the American Heritage Center at Laramie. Been sitting there since 1988- nobody bothered to look.
Why would he be talking to people from Wright Field and Lockheed? He didn't realize the significance of this.
archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv50…

Some ex-military personnel quietly talked about the Crash Retrieval situation. Each said they were given permission. Info went into archives, but not into books/newspapers. Here's one example: Jack Clerk (1919-1996), in 1953.
Box 3, Folder 2:

#ufotwitter https://t.co/GZXyVZGvBNarchiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv50…
I OCR'd Frank Scully's papers and found another hit for "Jack Clerk" in Box 6 FF6:

Searched newspapers for the phrase "UFO coverup" (or cover-up). Here are the earliest hits. 1960:
newspapers.com/article/the-ca… 1966:
newspapers.com/article/fort-w…

Rich Hoffman, Executive Board Member of the SCU, just verified Stringfield's claim that he was threatened (see below). Hoffman was there and was mentioned in the official symposium. Listen to Coast to Coast AM, hour 3:



#ufotwitter https://t.co/cChjcstbzKcoasttocoastam.com/show/2023-06-1…

https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1671014694822326273

Hoffman has a security clearance - he said so at the 2022 AAPC conference to hundreds of people. This is valuable corroboration.

Everybody (CCP/Russia/US) is in deadlock: We don't want to declassify Crash Retrievals, because we're all afraid of what the other guy might learn. But until we declassify and get a critical mass of scientists looking at the situation, there's little to no progress.
#ufotwitter The phenomenon (really, what appears to be one or more foreign forces that trespasses in our airspaces/lands at will) can easily exploit this situation. The last thing they would want is Disclosure because that's the pathway out of this mess.

If you're new to Disclosure, or still believe C/R's (Crash Retrievals, i.e. "Roswell" etc.) haven't happened, I would suggest 3 sources to begin with. First parse the NY Times. (I've been surprised how many can't understand this article.)

nytimes.com/2020/07/28/ins… Next is Dr. Eric W. Davis PhD, who according to the NY Times gave 2 classified briefings to the Senate in 2019. It's a slow interview, kinda boring, except for the middle which is extremely revealing (obviously purposely):

Here's a clear description of UAP's using Metric Engineering - from 1956. Nothing fundamentally new has been revealed to the public since the 1950's.

cufos.org/CSI_NY/CSI_NY_…

#ufotwitter #uaptwitter Most of the major themes and high-level ideas about what we know today about UAP's was already known by approximately 1958. The terminology is different, and in '58 only a tiny collection of dedicated researchers knew about some of the wilder stuff. Very little new has surfaced.

The "Working Group" kept the subject of UAP's and C/R's (Crash Retrievals) in the public eye for decades: Dr. Edward Teller created Lazar in the 80's. And Dr. Vannevar Bush pushed his associates from the war to help reveal the Aztec C/R to Scully.

#ufotwitter #uaptwitter They would bypass national security and just force it into the public realm. That's how powerful MJ-12 was.

There's no longer a need to classify C/R's (Crash Retrievals) because all the major powers (Russia, China, and the US) each have had their share of crashes now (Dr. Davis). The subject naturally tends to keep itself secret because few understand it, or can handle it.
#ufotwitter This allows the US, for example, to recruit for the CRP (Crash Retrieval Program - again Dr. Davis) right in the open! They can even put the declassification announcement right in NY Times. Still, basically nobody gets it yet - even people on ufotwitter.

nytimes.com/2020/07/28/ins…

To avoid mass ontological shock and cognitive dissonance causing a partial collapse scenario, they're extraordinarily slowly spreading out Disclosure over many decades. We'll likely be 20-30 years older before much more significant info is released.

#ufotwitter #uaptwitter However, it's relatively easy to get 10-30 years ahead just by investing the time and energy into researching the topic yourself.

The supposed Roswell craft (illustrated by Kevil D. Randle and others) looks totally badass. I could see this shape being quite inspirational to aircraft engineers in the late 40's/50's. (Thanks @xExist)

#ufotwitter #uaptwitter It was said to have been constructed of incredibly lightweight material.

The American Heritage Center has sent us more late 40's/early 1950's-era archive scans from their Frank Scully collection. There was a collection of photographic negatives in one box. Here's the first negative (which I inverted), from April 4, 1950:

#ufotwitter #uaptwitter I found a readable newspapers.com archive version from later that day:

newspapers.com/image/38131671…

I find it curious that Proximity Fuzes were being tested close to Socorro, NM in the 40's-50's, a location with many 20th century UAP sightings. Astronomer and ufologist J. Allen Hynek was one of the developers of this super high tech device.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximity…

#ufotwitter "During World War II, Hynek was a civilian scientist at the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, where he helped to develop the United States Navy's radio proximity fuze.":

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Allen_…

When diving into archives searching for answers about (for example) a specific person, you need to be in the right state of mind. To maximize success you have to place yourself in the era you're investigating and develop a model of the person you're researching.
#ufotwitter If the person's name is too common you wind up with hundreds or many thousands of hits. With too many hits manual inspection is impractical, even on a computer. You have to figure out how to filter the hits to narrow down the results. Each person is unique and you need a profile.

We've already reached what appears to be "Disclosure - Level 1". This 2018 video is a form of "soft" disclosure. Much has been declassified already and the people involved can talk:



#ufotwitter #uaptwitter It's going to probably take them 20+ years to push Disclosure to increasingly higher levels.

Probably 20 years because this is the time period Dr. Alexander Wendt said at his SCU AAPC 202 conference presentation.

The American NatSec state is strange. ex-CIA GS-15 John Ramirez stated that he was not a whistleblower, i.e. he had 100% permission to talk. He stated the JWST had a special set of coordinates to check. Now we have rumors of KIC 8462852, "QLAD", "hidden" time, etc.

#ufotwitter The supposed leaked document floating around on the web fits all the classic patterns of a Majestic-style release, too. Some of the phrases in there are extremely specialized/rare, or somewhat obscure. It's not your everyday average fake doc.

Just my daily reminder that #NASA maintains conformance with Standard Classification Guidelines.

#ufotwitter

https://twitter.com/OSIRIS_UAP/status/1547636392536117248

I just have to wonder what is truly considered classified and not classified. Obviously the only people that truly know are the ones with access to those compartments, which are classified. So if you don't have clearance, you don't actually have any clue.

https://twitter.com/richgel999/status/1566341225812303874

A common misconception is the US gov's interest in UAP's/UFO's stopped after Blue Book ended. No, just the purely PR side stopped. Sightings explicitly impacting National Security were still handled as usual:



#ufotwitter #uaptwitter There are two hands with stuff like this, like a magic show. The left hand says "nope there is no value here at all" while the right hand simultaneously says "this impacts NatSec; need to continue studying". The left hand was purely for PR purposes.

cufon.org/cufon/foia_011…