MrBeliever
Paranormal Maven
This is not a new statement, no:
PENTAGON UFO PROBE - Truth about UFO videos the US Government did NOT release
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring
- Thread starter uforadio
- Start date
Free episodes:
This is not a new statement, no:
PENTAGON UFO PROBE - Truth about UFO videos the US Government did NOT release
Ok then, just quote the same statement from that article, or the part that mentions Crosson.
I know it's hard to be a believer these days, but your continuous attempts of spreading misinformation don't really help anyone.
MrBeliever
Paranormal Maven
Sure:
Sorry for implying it was a direct quote from the same official. But the DoD denial was reported on in various ways.
@IsaacKoi on ATS:
And responding to another member there:
Looking forward to see his take, since he really tends to do his homework.
Those were "posted on Feb, 19", but I didn't notice there being a thread yet.
New York Times :
And responding to another member there:
Emphasis his.
Looking forward to see his take, since he really tends to do his homework.
Those were "posted on Feb, 19", but I didn't notice there being a thread yet.
Last edited:
DROBNJAK
Paranormal Adept
Just an idea.
Since camera is focused on waves and we know the distance to the waves, if we knew wind speed for that location and that day, maybe we can calculate the length of waves? And once we know a length of waves we can calculate a field of view and focal length of the lens?
Possibly, Maybe ;-)
Since camera is focused on waves and we know the distance to the waves, if we knew wind speed for that location and that day, maybe we can calculate the length of waves? And once we know a length of waves we can calculate a field of view and focal length of the lens?
Possibly, Maybe ;-)
Last edited:
There would likely be too many variables for calculating the behavior of the waves, even if we had that information, and those would be some sort of averages anyway. And we don't really need that information for calculating it was flying high and slow.
But speaking of location and day, that would be important information for other reasons as well, like knowing if it was a migration season for some birds, and there might even be wind data available somewhere if only we had those.
Could we make some sort of educated guess this video was taken during some larger exercise (similar to the Nimitz one)? Can we find a list of those that happened somewhere near Florida in 2015?
An exercise involving foreign jets could also explain them possibly misidentifying jet exhausts in the Gimbal clip. Here's a couple that involved other countries, though those do not mention any aircraft:
French sub "sank" U.S. Aircraft Carrier on March 4th, 2015 during pre-deployment exercise off the coast of Florida:
In 2015, a 30 Year Old French Nuclear Submarine 'Sank' a U.S. Aircraft Carrier
U.S., China conduct joint drills near Florida naval base in November, 2015:
U.S., China conduct joint drills near Florida naval base
In January:
F-18 Hornets buzzing over MacDill for Navy exercise
That's also a good example how knowing the exercise could reveal other details, such as it shouldn't have happened at nighttime.
Some interesting details about that:
Squadron of fighter jets at MacDill for training
And more:
MacDill hosts first of numerous '15 cross-service exercises > MacDill Air Force Base > Article Display
And more:
Navy Pilots Train at Tampa's Air Base
What doesn't match is that last part, low flying, but I would guess they did other stuff as well.
Last edited:
DROBNJAK
Paranormal Adept
We do not really have enough evidence neither to confirm nor deny it was UFO. Clip is to short, about 15 sec. We just know geometry of the situation better.
What happened before and after that, while pilots were trying to lock LANTRIN pod onto the object? Was object going much faster outside of the time period covered by video?
I looked at a moment which you indicated, just before the LANTRIN lock, and I can see no bird wings. It looks oblong to me as in all the rest of the frames.
An average UFO is about 12m in diameter. But they come in all variety of sizes. UFO are known for dropping drone like craft.
What happened before and after that, while pilots were trying to lock LANTRIN pod onto the object? Was object going much faster outside of the time period covered by video?
I looked at a moment which you indicated, just before the LANTRIN lock, and I can see no bird wings. It looks oblong to me as in all the rest of the frames.
An average UFO is about 12m in diameter. But they come in all variety of sizes. UFO are known for dropping drone like craft.
Thomas R Morrison
Paranormal Adept
Red flags all over this reply. Hmmm.
1.) This is the first time that someone has pitched out the old "tinfoil hat" pejorative following a description of the very common and widely known concept of human intuition, in a conversation with me anyway. If you haven't experienced a single moment like I've described, in your entire life, then you're the anomaly. It's such a common feature of being a human that the debate is whether there's a prosaic explanation, not whether it's a real experience.
2.) I've seen every video clip and read every article that I could find about this story, and Luis Elizondo has never mentioned "'demonic forces' coming from higher up in the DoD," not that I can recall anyway. What he did say was that some people with fundamental religious beliefs (presumably some of the far-right Congressional representatives and/or DoD management) opposed the AATIP because they think that UFOs are manifestations of demonic forces, which is obviously absurd, and a problem. It's frightening to think that people with that mentality have any power in our government, and especially with our military forces.
3.) The quote you cited from that NIDS article "there is considerable evidence that the phenomenon is real," is simply saying that there's considerable evidence of animal mutilations. Animal mutilation is "the phenomenon" that he's talking about (to my ear it sounds like the wording of Colm Kelleher, the director and lead scientist at NIDS). I think that Chris O'Brien would probably agree that it is in fact real.
4.) You seem to be implying that the Tic-Tac ufo and the incidents over nuclear bases like the Maelstrom AFB case, are somehow evidence of ESP or something - but that's a wildly unfounded perspective, imo. It seems clear to me that this is a technological issue. Apparently some of these advanced nonterrestrial devices can easily penetrate our electronics systems with their own electronic systems, and use that advantage to operate our technology and retrieve data from it. I see nothing eerie or mystical about it.
5.) This part directly contradicts itself:
First you imply some "greater underlying mystical/religious truth" that's coming out (with no evidence to support that presumption), then you take another jab at the reality of human intuition (which is nothing new at all), and then you refer to unspecified "unexplained phenomena" with the apparent implication that you believe in it. So you're all over the place, flipping back and forth between superstition and debunking, one right after the other.
6.) The AATIP was formed in 2007. If Luis Elizondo made any link to 9/11, I don't remember it (and you never bother to provide citations). We did expand all military and defense spending after 9/11, but that's a well-known fact.
Then you go completely off the rails and rant this nonsense:
...which has no relevance to anything (and you seem to be defending religious fundamentalism), and reads like the ravings of a complete lunatic.
Yikes - are we seeing yet another incarnation of the Waller troll here, folks?
Last edited:
Here's what I think might have happened. I think this would explain pretty much all of it:
This whole episode began with an exercise involving new pilots, possibly that mentioned above. Those pilots were super excited, like "dude, what is that bird?!" excited. They were not trained observers, let alone allowed to fly over cities with weapons (as Elizondo has stated), just being trained to become those.
During one of the training flights they were practicing to use their instruments, like the ATFLIR and autotrack. They were just pointing those to whatever targets they happened to find from the distance, and they didn't have the necessary experience to identify mundane things or estimate altitudes, speeds and such things. They were just getting to grips with their own speed, as quoted from above:
Since they were in the training, their performance was recorded, and the videos were analyzed. Someone wrote down the analysis, possibly with pilot interviews as well. The videos as such weren't classified, they didn't contain anything worth classifying, but there was that sensitive personal data of the pilots and their performance, so those were stored in a classified system because of that, not their content. Just like Elizondo said, the videos were not classified, but the system containing it was.
The descriptions of those videos mentioned the events like they happened, or how the pilots described them. They mentioned that they spotted some targets they couldn't identify. The words that were used might have even used the now familiar terms of unidentified aerial phenomena or stuff like that. The pilots may have thought the object was flying very fast and low, and it was written like that. That may be the origin of the supposed additional information from the pilots Garry Nolan for example might have heard through some chain of people.
Then we have the AATIP, or what was left of it in 2015. As far as the DoD was concerned, that program didn't even exist anymore, and they didn't have funding. So they weren't really in the position of performing proper investigations, interviewing pilots and so on. They were just trying to continue doing their then more personal mission. They were scouring the available databases with keywords, which happened to hit to those descriptions in that training video. They heard how the pilots were all excited, so they became excited as well, and perhaps just trusted what the comments stated.
Since that was just an unclassified training video, publishing it wasn't a problem, as long as all that personal data was removed. Easiest thing was to just drop it all, so there wasn't much need to properly analyze what can be made public and what not. All they had was an unclassified training video, and they just passed that through some of the necessary processes to make sure it doesn't cause them problems if they publish that. But it might be that it wasn't quite by the book all the way. It might be that they clipped those parts of the video that interested them back then already, as it would be easier to have someone evaluate just a minute of video than all of it.
In reality it's hardly classified information if some training video was taken during a specific exercise, especially if information from it was handled like this at the time:
TTSA might just claim it's classified, as they don't want to reveal how mundane all this really is.
As a reminder, according to Leslie Kean, this video, like the others, was "cleared for release in August", so about 2 months before TTSA was announced.
Also remember that, according to Washington Post, these were supposed to be the "most unusual videos":
This whole episode began with an exercise involving new pilots, possibly that mentioned above. Those pilots were super excited, like "dude, what is that bird?!" excited. They were not trained observers, let alone allowed to fly over cities with weapons (as Elizondo has stated), just being trained to become those.
During one of the training flights they were practicing to use their instruments, like the ATFLIR and autotrack. They were just pointing those to whatever targets they happened to find from the distance, and they didn't have the necessary experience to identify mundane things or estimate altitudes, speeds and such things. They were just getting to grips with their own speed, as quoted from above:
Since they were in the training, their performance was recorded, and the videos were analyzed. Someone wrote down the analysis, possibly with pilot interviews as well. The videos as such weren't classified, they didn't contain anything worth classifying, but there was that sensitive personal data of the pilots and their performance, so those were stored in a classified system because of that, not their content. Just like Elizondo said, the videos were not classified, but the system containing it was.
The descriptions of those videos mentioned the events like they happened, or how the pilots described them. They mentioned that they spotted some targets they couldn't identify. The words that were used might have even used the now familiar terms of unidentified aerial phenomena or stuff like that. The pilots may have thought the object was flying very fast and low, and it was written like that. That may be the origin of the supposed additional information from the pilots Garry Nolan for example might have heard through some chain of people.
Then we have the AATIP, or what was left of it in 2015. As far as the DoD was concerned, that program didn't even exist anymore, and they didn't have funding. So they weren't really in the position of performing proper investigations, interviewing pilots and so on. They were just trying to continue doing their then more personal mission. They were scouring the available databases with keywords, which happened to hit to those descriptions in that training video. They heard how the pilots were all excited, so they became excited as well, and perhaps just trusted what the comments stated.
Since that was just an unclassified training video, publishing it wasn't a problem, as long as all that personal data was removed. Easiest thing was to just drop it all, so there wasn't much need to properly analyze what can be made public and what not. All they had was an unclassified training video, and they just passed that through some of the necessary processes to make sure it doesn't cause them problems if they publish that. But it might be that it wasn't quite by the book all the way. It might be that they clipped those parts of the video that interested them back then already, as it would be easier to have someone evaluate just a minute of video than all of it.
In reality it's hardly classified information if some training video was taken during a specific exercise, especially if information from it was handled like this at the time:
TTSA might just claim it's classified, as they don't want to reveal how mundane all this really is.
As a reminder, according to Leslie Kean, this video, like the others, was "cleared for release in August", so about 2 months before TTSA was announced.
Also remember that, according to Washington Post, these were supposed to be the "most unusual videos":
Head of Pentagon’s secret ‘UFO’ office sought to make evidence public
Last edited:
Hollywood Tomfortas
Paranormal Adept
There’s a funny joke about the Lone Ranger and his faithful Indian sidekick Tonto riding into what appears to be an Indian ambush. As the Lone Ranger grasps the gravity of their situation, he blurts out alarmingly to his sidekick:
“Tonto! Tonto! We’re surrounded by Indians!”
Tonto replies: “What do you mean WE, white man?”
And so, Brother @Thomas R Morrison , we all wonder, don’t we, when you might ever learn to speak for yourself and not for some imaginary group of followers devoted to the narcissistic and moralistic crusade of your own unique brand of self-righteousness?”
Thomas R Morrison
Paranormal Adept
Who's the self-righteous narcissist here, really, Tom? I was simply pointing out that anyone with a pair of eyes can see this member's posts.
Also, get over your butthurt; it's unbecoming of a partially grown manchild.
MrBeliever
Paranormal Maven
We're all sat here in front of the same rabbit hole. Someone is trying to feed us a pile of something. The UFO evidence is very thin. Down the rabbit hole, I see a lot more than just UFOs. I see a paranormal cornucopia of things that all somehow lead to Bigelow. And I see scientists that seem to share unusual beliefs.
The demonic forces thing is from Elizondo's C2C interview. Trust me, he said that. You can also listen to Jeremy Corbell's last interview on Fade2Black, where he expands a bit on Bigelow and his work. It paints a very odd picture. It does get confusing.
What's the end game? It's not clear. But it certainly seems like the UFOs are the sugar coating for something we're not going to enjoy.
Because right now, we're being told something has come to Earth, but it's actively hiding from us. And the government knows about it, has known about it, and it is also hiding it from us. It has lied for it and destroyed lives for it. Can you blame a guy for getting paranoid?
Hollywood Tomfortas
Paranormal Adept
Ah, butt Thomas, you are forgetting the fact that I am not only aware of my self-righteous narcissism, I celebrate it! Indeed, if you want evidence, just look at my posting history here, especially back in late 2012 when I made my debut on Paracast, and wallowed so giddily in the crop circle mud of the Nancy Talbott/Robbert van den Broeke/Colin Andrews debacle.
Now here the old saying applies; “It takes one to know one.”
With a hey nonny nonny and a Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
Knowing Bigelow’s history and the TTSA’s researchers, there was no other choice than to load the paranormal into their discloser “bombshell”.
I wouldn’t take Jeremy Corbell (Comdr. Whitehead) seriously, since claiming to post the “Go Fast” clip a couple of years before the TTSA posted their clip. Receiving undue attention, he’s a wannabe wishing to produce a Skinwalker flick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas R Morrison
Paranormal Adept
Fair enough. I can understand the impulse to paranoia, given all that's come before in this area between hoaxes and disinfo etc. (and even some of the outlandish trolling that has gone on here recently). And yes, it is alarming that these unknown devices are operating in a covert manner, and they can clearly outperform our most advanced known technology, and they have been around for quite awhile now - at least 70+ years. But on the other hand they don't seem to be acting in an overtly hostile manner, so, based on the aerial observations alone, my best guess is that they're simply observing, and occasionally toying with us.
Bigelow seems to be in the middle of things in recent decades, but apparently that's simply because he's been interested in these subjects for many decades and he has had the money to fund various investigative efforts. I assume that he'd like to figure out the propulsion principle of these devices, for entirely pragmatic and self-interested reasons. I don't see anything diabolical about that though. I'll have to listen to Corbell's interview - I've never dug deeply into Bigelow or his projects. I know that there's still a lot of fallout over his involvement with MUFON years ago. Things often get ugly where money comes into play.
It's nothing personal, but I don't take anyone's word for anything - it's too easy to hear a skewed version of things if your attention waivers for a moment or whatnot. And I'd rather cut my own hand off than pay to listen to the C2C archives, so I'll have to put your retelling of Elizondo's statement into my grey basket until I hear it for myself. I've heard every other interview that he's given (because only the C2C interview has a paywall), and he's never said anything that indicates to me that he would believe in "demonic forces," in the DoD or anywhere else for that matter. I do recall his dismay with others who believe that "demonic forces" are associated with the UFO topic, however.
I don't feel that the UFO evidence is all that thin anymore, honestly. There have been so many credible witness cases and radar-visual cases and so forth that at this point I feel that it's more about getting the empirical evidence to prove it to others, than it is about proving to myself that it's real. The Nimitz case is an excellent example - I see no reason to suspect that those pilots are lying, but the DoD is clearly holding out on us. The DoD has everything: the full videos and the radar data and whatever else, and yet we only get to see a meaningless little long-range clip from a subsequent long-range intercept attempt. Not a single second of Cmdr. Fravor's encounter has been released - that's what burns me up. The TTSA seems to be doing whatever they can to get these videos declassified and released, but the DoD is playing games and giving us the floor clippings instead of the compelling evidence from these encounters. So I think it's a mistake to blame TTSA for what the DoD is doing.
You're so blindly biased against this story and everyone involved with it that I honestly can't tell if you do this intentionally or if it's an honest mistake: Corbell never claimed that he had that footage two years before it was released. People jumped to that conclusion all on their own. In fact the opposite is true: Corbell went out of his way to explain to people that he had simply deleted an old video and uploaded the new one, but Vimeo displays the original upload date on each link, instead of displaying the actual upload date of each video.
Last edited:
TTSA seems to have made another "correction" to their investment figures:
To The Stars Academy
Here's the background for those who haven't read my earlier posts about it:
- Archived versions and my own monitoring of those figures have revealed that the average investment sum has been around $500, and there have been very few larger investments in thousands, let alone tens of thousands.
- Archived versions reveal that between October 23 and 28, something odd happened: a million of extra investments on top of that usual $500-$550/investor trend.
- Since I noticed that, I have suspected the TTSA has tweked their numbers to make them look better and lure in new investors (why not invest, if so much has been invested already...)
- I have stated numerous times here in the past that I'm sort of expecting that million will disappear at some point.
- On February 15, my suspicions seemed to get a partial confirmation: $100,000 disappeared from the figures.
- Since that, I have waited to see another similar event. I have suspected it might happen around the same time it happened last time, which was when they had gathered $2,520,443, and in the middle of the month.
Now, on March 16, almost exactly a month later, while they had gathered 2969 investors and a total of $2,543,189, they have updated their counters again. And guess what has happened?
2,980
Investors
$2,480,114
Amount Raised
So, they got 11 new investors since the last update, but lost $63,075 somewhere. Since those new investors should have brought additional money, the "correction would most likely be $70000, or maybe $75000 if they happened to be those that spent double the averages.
I believe they are updating their counters manually, and there's once again the possibility that someone made a typo or something (that has happened as well), but given that there has already been such a "correction" before, it wouldn't be a big surprise if it happened again.
If that is the case, should that interest the SEC? Does that constitute to misleading investors? And on that note, how about marketing videos like the "GO FAST" with obviously incorrect information, that is published on their page under "Investment updates"?
If my hunch is correct, they are a in a bit of hurry to make the rest of that million, around $825,000, to disappear before the investment period ends on September 29, 2018, preferably so that nobody notices what happens. Well, that didn't work, if that's the case. They may have hoped to be making enough money that such corrections wouldn't be much of a problem.
To The Stars Academy
Here's the background for those who haven't read my earlier posts about it:
- Archived versions and my own monitoring of those figures have revealed that the average investment sum has been around $500, and there have been very few larger investments in thousands, let alone tens of thousands.
- Archived versions reveal that between October 23 and 28, something odd happened: a million of extra investments on top of that usual $500-$550/investor trend.
- Since I noticed that, I have suspected the TTSA has tweked their numbers to make them look better and lure in new investors (why not invest, if so much has been invested already...)
- I have stated numerous times here in the past that I'm sort of expecting that million will disappear at some point.
- On February 15, my suspicions seemed to get a partial confirmation: $100,000 disappeared from the figures.
- Since that, I have waited to see another similar event. I have suspected it might happen around the same time it happened last time, which was when they had gathered $2,520,443, and in the middle of the month.
Now, on March 16, almost exactly a month later, while they had gathered 2969 investors and a total of $2,543,189, they have updated their counters again. And guess what has happened?
2,980
Investors
$2,480,114
Amount Raised
So, they got 11 new investors since the last update, but lost $63,075 somewhere. Since those new investors should have brought additional money, the "correction would most likely be $70000, or maybe $75000 if they happened to be those that spent double the averages.
I believe they are updating their counters manually, and there's once again the possibility that someone made a typo or something (that has happened as well), but given that there has already been such a "correction" before, it wouldn't be a big surprise if it happened again.
If that is the case, should that interest the SEC? Does that constitute to misleading investors? And on that note, how about marketing videos like the "GO FAST" with obviously incorrect information, that is published on their page under "Investment updates"?
If my hunch is correct, they are a in a bit of hurry to make the rest of that million, around $825,000, to disappear before the investment period ends on September 29, 2018, preferably so that nobody notices what happens. Well, that didn't work, if that's the case. They may have hoped to be making enough money that such corrections wouldn't be much of a problem.
Last edited:
SRL+
Paranormal Adept
True, you are correct in that it was a serendipitous occasion in bringing the luminary some limelight. In reading his Tweets, he's a very excited luminary.
JEREMY CORBELL (@JeremyCorbell) | Twitter
Last edited by a moderator:
DROBNJAK
Paranormal Adept
L'Problem is that there are so many people with are very differently informed and with huge difference in knowledge.
Lets say I read at least 5 books with engineering data about UFOs and probably about 15 papers written by engineers or scientist. Beside that I went through about 100-150 UFO cases where I can clearly see standard engineering patterns in UFO behavior.
And there are members in this forum who are conversant in Maxwell's and Einstein's equations. And that is absolute necessary to even start understanding UFOs.
Now how do you communicate about physicality of UFOs to a member of general public, who just refuses to learn anything that is too 'technical' and wants everything reduced to 'common sense'? 'Common sense' can help you prepare some eggs and bacon for breakfast, but will be completely useless in explaining any of modern science.
If we somehow can all be brought to the same level of information and knowledge, than we would be much more constructive as a group, instead constantly being territorial and trying to impose 'common sense' on each other. Its pointless even trying to resolve a 'non common sense' problem, like UFOs, with a 'common sense' (which, by the way, doesn't even exist).
Last edited:
Thomas R Morrison
Paranormal Adept
Hmmm - new rumors tonight that NASA has handed over a couple of videos to Luis Elizondo:
Breaking News: Has NASA approved new videos for To The Stars Academy?? - UAPinfo.net
Breaking News: Has NASA approved new videos for To The Stars Academy?? - UAPinfo.net
withoutlimits09
Paranormal Adept
I find it ironic that anyone on this forum would mock Elizondo for making reference to "demonic forces" or suggesting fundamental religious types in the government might view this phenomena as some manifestation of demonic forces. This is ironic because the great Nick Redfern, a guy who is adored by the cool kids, "reframing the debate," wrote a book focused EXACTLY on that idea, i.e., there is a group in government, "The Collins Elite" that think this could all be demonic.
So its OK that Nick Redfern suggests this, because he is in the cool kid's paracast fraternity of "researchers," but if a career intel officer seems to confirm that reality, these people mock him!
I find it interesting that Redfern wrote a book about a group within the government working on the assumption UFOs are demonic, and Elizondo seems to have maybe confirmed that. But Elizondo, isn't part of the cynical sub-culture of "new Ufology" so he gets mocked, and Redfern gets a pass. Typical
Got it.
This is Redfern's book title LOL!!!!!
FINAL EVENTS and the Secret Government Group on Demonic UFOs and the Afterlife