Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[withoutlimits09]

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.

Corbell is an honest guy, I have interacted with him for years. He should absolutely be taken serious. People that are suggesting he posted the "GO FAST" clip a couple years ago are retarded. He satisfactorily explained why it appeared like that, and even recorded an example showing how it can be done, i.e.m duplicating the same issue. In short, the guy has a massive video archive, and he likes to keep things in a specific order for archive purposes. He simply replaced a two year old clip, with the new GO FAST clip, to keep things more organized, not knowing the replacement video would keep original video's upload date. Anyone who has dealt with front end asset management systems know this type of behavior is common, when you are allowed to edit, or update a file. Sometimes it will replace the file, but none of the meta data attached to it.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

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

You do realize that I wasn't mocking Luis Elizondo, right? I do, however, think that the Collins Elite and others who think like that are out of their effing minds for thinking that UFOs have anything to do with "demonic forces" - a phrase which rings of a super creepy Dark Ages level of mentality, imo. There are clearly a lot of people in high positions of power in this country who think like that - we've heard these kinds of people say insane stuff like: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," for example.

I assume that Redfern is writing about those people, not agreeing with them. But I could be wrong; I haven't read the book.

 

[SRL+]

Corbell is an honest guy, I have interacted with him for years. He should absolutely be taken serious. People that are suggesting he posted the "GO FAST" clip a couple years ago are retarded. He satisfactorily explained why it appeared like that, and even recorded an example showing how it can be done, i.e.m duplicating the same issue. In short, the guy has a massive video archive, and he likes to keep things in a specific order for archive purposes. He simply replaced a two year old clip, with the new GO FAST clip, to keep things more organized, not knowing the replacement video would keep original video's upload date. Anyone who has dealt with front end asset management systems know this type of behavior is common, when you are allowed to edit, or update a file. Sometimes it will replace the file, but none of the meta data attached to it.

Oh...yes, I know quite a bit about the ole’ Skinwalker Ranch myself. You see, at one time, twas my favorite pet. That is why along ago, yours truly predicted the ranch would intermingle with the narrative over @ TTSA. If you wish to take the tales of Skinwalker Ranch seriously, be my guest, as I’ve already traveled that demonic trail, and have come up with some of my own serious thinking

 

[withoutlimits09]

You do realize that I wasn't mocking Luis Elizondo, right? I do, however, think that the Collins Elite and others who think like that are out of their effing minds for thinking that UFOs have anything to do with "demonic forces" - a phrase which rings of a super creepy Dark Ages level of mentality, imo. There are clearly a lot of people in high positions of power in this country who think like that - we've heard these kinds of people say insane stuff like: "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," for example.

I assume that Redfern is writing about those people, not agreeing with them. But I could be wrong; I haven't read the book.

Someone wrote, "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."

You replied, "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."

My point wasn't directed really at you, but at anyone trying to suggest that because Elizondo mentioned "demons" and UFOs, that he somehow loses credibility. Nick Redfern is a rockstar on this forum, and with this audience, so it would be hypocritical for anyone to attack Elizondo for mentioning a group within government concerned with demonic forces, when Nick Redfern wrote a book about that very topic, and everyone on this site bowed down to him...

 

[MrBeliever]

I think most importantly, fervent atheists chuckled at the ridiculous notion of demonic forces because of the religious connotation.

But imagine the face of the dude who received the first report of paranormal activity at Skinwalker on his desk. An "intelligence" that can read your mind and open portals. It's a little bit like tiptoeing around the word "alien." If it looks like a demon, and it acts like a demon...

 

[withoutlimits09]

Oh...yes, I know quite a bit about the ole’ Skinwalker Ranch myself. You see, at one time, twas my favorite pet. That is why along ago, yours truly predicted the ranch would intermingle with the narrative over @ TTSA. If you wish to take the tales of Skinwalker Ranch seriously, be my guest, as I’ve already traveled that demonic trail, and have come up with some of my own serious thinking

I mentioned nothing on Skin Walker Ranch, not one part of my quote was directed at that topic. Rather, I was pointing out that anyone who thinks Corbell is less than credible because they honestly believe he had the "go fast" video on his video account for two years, is retarded, because he adequately explained how that snafu happened, and even duplicated it as further proof it was nothing more than him replacing a 2 year old video WITH the Go Fast video...

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

I think most importantly, fervent atheists chuckled at the ridiculous notion of demonic forces because of the religious connotation.

But imagine the face of the dude who received the first report of paranormal activity at Skinwalker on his desk. An "intelligence" that can read your mind and open portals. It's a little bit like tiptoeing around the word "alien." If it looks like a demon, and it acts like a demon...

Okay so what does a demon look like?

Pics or it didn't happen

 

[SRL+]

For those interested, here’s a primer. Consider it as Skinwalker 101 …

SKINWALKER RANCH .

 

[MrBeliever]

Okay so what does a demon look like?

Pics or it didn't happen

It looks like the exact type of thing a person would hallucinate if a mind control device set to "fear" was aimed at their brain!

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

It looks like the exact type of thing a person would hallucinate if a mind control device set to "fear" was aimed at their brain!

Hello @withoutlimits09 and @MrBeliever .

I would like to copy here part of a posting I made feb 28 on th infamous “locked thread” concerning the DH = Demon Hypothesis in UFOlogy. I also directly quote Luis Elizondo and his mention of demons on the C2C interview.


From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program
=======

Now, as it turns out, Brother Morrison, I happen to know many things about the “provenance” or history of TTSA and AATIP which I intend to share and continue to share on this very thread. You see, TTSA/AATIP did not arise fully formed out of a vacuum. It has a long history, and the immediate precursor of TTSA/AATIP is Robert Bigelow and his NIDS program which in turn arose out of the military’s Stargate program led by Col. John Alexander who overlaps with Lt. Col. Michael Aquino in matters of applying principles of Mind Control, including Remote Viewing, for waging psychological warfare (PsyOps.)

Now, if in tracing that provenance, the matter of child molestation arises, then so be it! Because when such a phenomenon arises, it is always in connection with SRA= Satanic Ritual Abuse, and, with the mention of Satan, we come to . . . Well, rather than have me explain it, allow me to quote the words of your hero Luis Elizondo from the transcript compiled by this diligent Redditor who transcribed Luis’ interview but George Knapp on Coast to Coast radio a few days ago.

Lots of Interesting New Info From C2C Luis Elizondo Interview (Live Updates) • r/UFOs

LUIS ELIZONDO speaking on C2C :

“Paranormal just means anything below our level of understanding. Paranormal is just that until it's normal. If you want to make this more concrete, most Americans have belief in something. I think it's interesting that so many place belief in a god or gods (I am spiritual myself, I'm just pointing it out) while on the other hand people look at things that are 'paranormal' and people raise their eyebrows."

On why AATIP’s funding was disputed within the DOD: Yes, funding was moved partially because people, although they believed it, thought they were dealing with demonic forces.”

So there you have Luis himself mentioning “demonic forces” as a phenomenon within the purview of AATIP itself, not to mention its young progeny, TTSA. That phenomenon is known as the DH = Demon Hypothesis, a subset of the IDH=Inter-Dimensional Hypothesis, which vies with the ETH = Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis.

Furthermore, the very definition of the Demon Hypothesis was made by no less a Paracast luminary than @ Mike and he did so on this very thread!!! So, how’s that for being “On Topic” eh, Brother Morrison?

May I now direct your attention to Message #178 on this very thread, dated December 22, 2017
From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program

So, what is it that engenders such fear and loathing in you about my own particular interest in and commentary on the NY Times article? Why, I might even say that you are driven to demonize me because of my interest in the Demon Hypothesis of UFOlogy. Now that’s what I call ironic! And I hope that someday, Brother Morrison, you might learn to become cognizant of that irony, and perhaps begin a long convalescent life process of learning how to laugh at yourself and your own viable pretentiousness for such “folly of irony.”

 

[withoutlimits09]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I am just saying, generally, that nobody should have a massive objection to Elizondo mentioning the possibility of demons or a faction of government that thinks these sightings could represent demonic activity, unless they were also critical of Paracast All-Star Nick Redfern, who wrote a book proclaiming exactly that.

So, if anyone is going to say that because Elizondo mentioned demons, he is in the crazy basket, then they better go on the record and say Redfern is full of shit too. Oddly, I think there will be a bunch of people who will mock Elizondo, but have no issue with Redfern, simply because Redfern is a fraternity brother of the "reframing the debate crowd" that largely dominate these forums, and the guests that appear on the show.

Personally, I find it interesting that several years ago Redfern wrote a book about a government cabal convinced UFOs represented demons, and here you have a Pentagon insider saying, "well there is a group in government that doesn't want to touch this subject because of its possible demonic implications..."

I think it is cool that Elizondo affirmed, to some degree, Redfern's research. However, knowing how most of the all-star cool kids behave on this site and their written work, they will bow to Redfern for taking a "different approach" but ridicule Elizodo for mentioning the same things.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Brother @Realm , I’ve been conversing with Garry Nolan on the TTSA Facebook group page and actually posted your snippet about Bruce Macabee’s off the wall calculations. But here’s the issue that Garry wants you to address.

========

Garry Nolan. Tom Mellett. I can accept calculations based on assumptions. But assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions as we all know. As I've said in 3 other places so far and no one has addressed: The focal plane of something flying at 12,500 feet would not allow for waves to be seen in the background as they are. If those are waves, then something about the perspective is off. The boffins at paracast etc. have yet to answer that for me in how their calculations allow one to see waves as they are in the background. Let's just say I checked with someone who would know... and they agree with me.

The video is of something that's about 100 feet off the surface of the ocean. So-- that means that something about the numbers paracast etc. are extracting from the video are NOT the angles, etc. that should be used in their calculations. Now-- as I have also said, the speed of the object in the video (across 22 seconds) is not necessarily from the same time period as the speed I was told it was clocked at. I am saying-- I don't know when the speed was clocked-- could have been 20 minutes before, etc., but it was the reported speed from radar.

Third, even if it was "the speed of a migratory bird"-- that doesn't mean it WAS a migratory bird.

Fourth... there are unreported claims (yeah, I know not helpful) that gave the pilots more than enough reason to know with zero doubt it was not a bird. So-- until we get more information we either have to believe what we are told or remain skeptical. I am both.



Paul Scott Anderson Tom Mellett That article is basically just a debunking piece. No reference to previous videos, pilot testimony, etc. Also, could Maccabee be wrong? Sure, but that hasn't been proven yet. He is a leading expert in this kind of analysis. Metabunk et al could also be wrong, we just don't know. As Nolan also said, it could be a video snippet from a different part of the incident than what he was told about re: the speed.

 

[Realm]

First things first:
I noticed my spreadsheet had a simple error at the end in the speed calculations, I had probably just left some of my earlier testing equations there (that I was using to perform some sanity checks) and didn't notice. So the real speeds seem to be a bit larger, from 17m/s to 21m/s, but the picture and tracks and nothing else changes.

So the speed should be:
21 m/s = 77 km/h = 48 mph

I can accept calculations based on assumptions.

What assumptions? He and Maccabee are the ones making assumptions, I and several others are actually making calculations based on actual numbers.

But assumptions can lead to faulty conclusions as we all know.

Sure, they both have proven that.

As I've said in 3 other places so far and no one has addressed: The focal plane of something flying at 12,500 feet would not allow for waves to be seen in the background as they are. If those are waves, then something about the perspective is off. The boffins at paracast etc. have yet to answer that for me in how their calculations allow one to see waves as they are in the background. Let's just say I checked with someone who would know... and they agree with me.

Where does he get that idea? I guess he has never used a superzoom camera for instance. Just look at this video from Nikon P900 for example, which has similar zoom capabilities to the ATFLIR:

Just look how the scenes are more or less in focus from different distances at the same time.

Here are some explanations and comparison shots that show that effect:
Focusing Basics | Aperture and Depth of Field
https://petapixel.com/2016/05/18/depth-field-explained/

Furthermore, how can he claim the target and the background would be in focus at the same time, as while the target is not yet tracked and the waves are more clear, it actually disappears entirely from the view at some frames. It's not in proper focus. When it's tracked, the waves are very blurry, both due to motion and not being in focus.

The video is of something that's about 100 feet off the surface of the ocean.

No, it's not. He should learn some math, and some photography.

So-- that means that something about the numbers paracast etc. are extracting from the video are NOT the angles, etc. that should be used in their calculations.

So the TTSA is lying to us then?

The F/A-18 Super Hornet is at 25,000 feet altitude, 259 knots (~300 mph, Mach 0.61), and in level flight. The sensor is aimed 22 degrees below the horizon and 36 degrees to the left of the F/A-18’s direction.
...
At the right of the screen, the rangefinder denotes that the object is at 4.4 nautical miles (5.1 statute miles) slant range.

2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE

Isn't it funny that the TTSA agrees with us what those numbers indicate, yet their advisor doesn't?

Also, if the numbers we are using as angles are not angles, why do they have degree marks in the ATFLIR display?

Now-- as I have also said, the speed of the object in the video (across 22 seconds) is not necessarily from the same time period as the speed I was told it was clocked at. I am saying-- I don't know when the speed was clocked-- could have been 20 minutes before, etc., but it was the reported speed from radar.

So where does that information come from, and if it is classified, who leaked that to him? I'm calling bs on that whole claim unless he can answer such basic questions.

Third, even if it was "the speed of a migratory bird"-- that doesn't mean it WAS a migratory bird.

True, due to the low quality of the video, it could have been a balloon as well. One with a diameter of 1-2 meters, flying at 4 kilometers.

Fourth... there are unreported claims (yeah, I know not helpful) that gave the pilots more than enough reason to know with zero doubt it was not a bird. So-- until we get more information we either have to believe what we are told or remain skeptical. I am both.

Oh great, more "unreported claims".

Isn't it funny how he feels the need to both try to deny the basic math that shows he is wrong, and invoke some secret information nobody can check how it could still be low and fast at some other time, even if the math shows it wasn't?

Also, could Maccabee be wrong? Sure, but that hasn't been proven yet.

Yes it has been proven. He actually proved that pretty well by himself already on how much his results have changed in a few days.

He is a leading expert in this kind of analysis.

Obviously he isn't. He doesn't even seem to understand how much small changes in his initial values change the overall results over those distances, as instead of using the best available values, he is basically just guessing his own.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

First things first:
I noticed my spreadsheet had a simple error at the end in the speed calculations, I had probably just left some of my earlier testing equations there (that I was using to perform some sanity checks) and didn't notice. So the real speeds seem to be a bit larger, from 17m/s to 21m/s, but the picture and tracks and nothing else changes.

So the speed should be:
21 m/s = 77 km/h = 48 mph




What assumptions? He and Maccabee are the ones making assumptions, I and several others are actually making calculations based on actual numbers.



Sure, they both have proven that.



Where does he get that idea? I guess he has never used a superzoom camera for instance. Just look at this video from Nikon P900 for example, which has similar zoom capabilities to the ATFLIR:

Just look how the scenes are more or less in focus from different distances at the same time.

Here are some explanations and comparison shots that show that effect:
Focusing Basics | Aperture and Depth of Field
https://petapixel.com/2016/05/18/depth-field-explained/

Furthermore, how can he claim the target and the background would be in focus at the same time, as while the target is not yet tracked and the waves are more clear, it actually disappears entirely from the view at some frames. It's not in proper focus. When it's tracked, the waves are very blurry, both due to motion and not being in focus.



No, it's not. He should learn some math, and some photography.



So the TTSA is lying to us then?

2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE

Isn't it funny that the TTSA agrees with us what those numbers indicate, yet their advisor doesn't?

Also, if the numbers we are using as angles are not angles, why do they have degree marks in the ATFLIR display?



So where does that information come from, and if it is classified, who leaked that to him? I'm calling bs on that whole claim unless he can answer such basic questions.



True, due to the low quality of the video, it could have been a balloon as well. One with a diameter of 1-2 meters, flying at 4 kilometers.



Oh great, more "unreported claims".

Isn't it funny how he feels the need to both try to deny the basic math that shows he is wrong, and invoke some secret information nobody can check how it could still be low and fast at some other time, even if the math shows it wasn't?



Yes it has been proven. He actually proved that pretty well by himself already on how much his results have changed in a few days.



Obviously he isn't. He doesn't even seem to understand how much small changes in his initial values change the overall results over those distances, as instead of using the best available values, he is basically just guessing his own.

All righty then, Brother @Realm , I shall drop this on Garry and the True Believer crew at TTSA FB forthwith.

Meanwhile over at Metabunk, this enterprising camera expert explains hyperfocal distance, depth of field and a cute optical term that may describe TTSA at the moment: “Acceptable Circle of Confusion.”

"GO FAST" Footage from Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. Bird? Balloon?

 

[Realm]

I shall drop this on Garry and the True Believer crew at TTSA FB forthwith.

Here's something else you can drop on them (or actually better just link to this post, as you can't link directly to these images as they won't show to those who are not logged in here):


This should be easy enough to understand for someone with a Ph.D. The picture shows the situation both in the beginning of tracking (red) and at the end (green). It has correct distances and angles, so you can measure this stuff from the picture if you like (1 pixel=10 meters in the original image). There's nothing unclear about it, basic math shows that the object was at altitude of over 4 km.

You can think of the red and green values as two different pictures on top of each other if you like, since the plane has obviously moved between them. Note how in both cases the values result in pretty much exactly the same altitude (actual values 4048 meters for red, 4062 meters for green, although by using some improved accuracy, I believe 4039 is closer to the real value). That strongly indicates it was flying at more or less constant altitude, and calculations and visual inspection of the video indicate it was flying more or less in straight line. So basically it didn't do anything interesting, it was a small (1-2 meters) object, flying high up (~4039 meters), relatively slowly (~77km/h = 48 mph). Everything the video actually shows is consistent with a large bird, or a balloon.

Notice how I only needed to use 3 values, all of which are directly available on the video:
Altitude of the plane: There's nothing unclear in this, and it can be expected to be highly accurate.
The angle of the sensor below horizon. Calculations indicate this is also highly accurate, and it should be, as the ATFLIR needs to have precision control for image stabilization.
Rangefinder distance: Laser rangefinder, can be expected to be highly accurate (although the values that are displayed on the screen are not, but enough to make these calculations anyway)

TTSA agrees with me on all of these how they are interpreted:
- "Super Hornet is at 25,000 feet altitude"
- "The sensor is aimed 22 degrees below the horizon"
- "At the right of the screen, the rangefinder denotes that the object is at 4.4 nautical miles (5.1 statute miles) slant range."

Note especially how at the end (green values) the plane is still flying at 7.6 kilometers, and the rangefinder indicates the distance to the target is 6.2 kilometers. The distance is 1.4 kilometers shorter than straight down vertical distance to the ocean. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to claim the object was 100 feet from the ocean. That much is already proven by only two values, the altitude, and the rangefinder distance, regardless of any angles.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Here's something else you can drop on them (or actually better just link to this post, as you can't link directly to these images as they won't show to those who are not logged in here):


This should be easy enough to understand for someone with a Ph.D. The picture shows the situation both in the beginning of tracking (red) and at the end (green). It has correct distances and angles, so you can measure this stuff from the picture if you like (1 pixel=10 meters in the original image). There's nothing unclear about it, basic math shows that the object was at altitude of over 4 km.

You can think of the red and green values as two different pictures on top of each other if you like, since the plane has obviously moved between them. Note how in both cases the values result in pretty much exactly the same altitude (actual values 4048 meters for red, 4062 meters for green, although by using some improved accuracy, I believe 4039 is closer to the real value). That strongly indicates it was flying at more or less constant altitude, and calculations and visual inspection of the video indicate it was flying more or less in straight line. So basically it didn't do anything interesting, it was a small (1-2 meters) object, flying high up (~4039 meters), relatively slowly (~77km/h = 48 mph). Everything the video actually shows is consistent with a large bird, or a balloon.

Notice how I only needed to use 3 values, all of which are directly available on the video:
Altitude of the plane: There's nothing unclear in this, and it can be expected to be highly accurate.
The angle of the sensor below horizon. Calculations indicate this is also highly accurate, and it should be, as the ATFLIR needs to have precision control for image stabilization.
Rangefinder distance: Laser rangefinder, can be expected to be highly accurate (although the values that are displayed on the screen are not, but enough to make these calculations anyway)

TTSA agrees with me on all of these how they are interpreted:
- "Super Hornet is at 25,000 feet altitude"
- "The sensor is aimed 22 degrees below the horizon"
- "At the right of the screen, the rangefinder denotes that the object is at 4.4 nautical miles (5.1 statute miles) slant range."

Note especially how at the end (green values) the plane is still flying at 7.6 kilometers, and the rangefinder indicates the distance to the target is 6.2 kilometers. The distance is 1.4 kilometers shorter than straight down vertical distance to the ocean. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to claim the object was 100 feet from the ocean. That much is already proven by only two values, the altitude, and the rangefinder distance, regardless of any angles.

Cool Beans, @Realm ! I managed to copy your image and just posted it and you text for Garry & Co on TTSA FB.

I also added this comment to Garry, since the 100 ft altitude cannot be validated from the focus of the ocean waves.

Garry, as it turns out, the issue of focal plane is better addressed by considering the Hyperfocal length of the lens, which tells the Depth of Field for the object along with its “Acceptable Circle of Confusion.”

Those considerations show that any object between the altitude of your value = 100 ft above sea level up to an altitude of half the jet’s altitude, i.e. 12,500 ft, will be in as good a focus as the focus of the ocean waves themselves. Therefore, your objection is moot, since the ocean waves themselves, an object at 100 ft, and an object at 12,500 ft will be in just about equal focus.

 

[MrBeliever]

The more pressing question for me is, Garry, are you in the circle or not? Can you talk to anyone there? Why isn't TTSA communicating? Surely they must be getting inundated with e-mails. I know I sent one, and it said pretty much what Realm said above: the UFO is being chased and caught up to by a jet moving at subsonic speeds, it's miles up in the air, and it's part of the same event as the Gimbal. The analysis needs to be corrected.

When Elizondo described the COI, there was a strong suggestion that they would invite people to share ideas and "help identify these things." They're doing the exact opposite. It's just a one-way communication portal and there is no invitation to contact them (you have to go to the DPO website to get an e-mail form).

I didn't care that the UFO's movement was being mischaracterized, but I deeply care that, in 2018, and especially given the company's nature, they would go into complete radio silence. They have multiple avenues of communication at their fingertips, and they choose to use none.

There is one thing worth bringing up, though. Both Hal Puthoff and Elizondo have been playing with fire by going on all these interviews. They're trying to preserve their security clearances, but they let out so much already (e.g., confirming leaks of classified documents, making long pauses before giving a non-answer-that's-actually-an-answer, describing classified radar data to give weight to their arguments, sharing conclusions reached from classified reports).

If anything, TTSA needs to go out of their way to prove that no classified information is being shared internally (and illegally). Putting out a faulty analysis is a pretty classic way of doing that. Kind of like not copying the entirety of the A+ student's homework. They take a hit to their credibility with the public, but if it means the DoD will release more compelling data, it's more than worth it.

But granted, that's wishful thinking on my part.

 

[MrBeliever]

Jeremy Corbell is "being told" things:

"I’m told it was NOT the same pilots... and the events were at least a year apart. I trust that information, so it’s a mystery now. I’m also told that PRF codes play no role, and are irrelevant. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

Source:

https://twitter.com/x/status/974769694015025152

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

The more pressing question for me is, Garry, are you in the circle or not? Can you talk to anyone there? Why isn't TTSA communicating? Surely they must be getting inundated with e-mails. I know I sent one, and it said pretty much what Realm said above: the UFO is being chased and caught up to by a jet moving at subsonic speeds, it's miles up in the air, and it's part of the same event as the Gimbal. The analysis needs to be corrected.

When Elizondo described the COI, there was a strong suggestion that they would invite people to share ideas and "help identify these things." They're doing the exact opposite. It's just a one-way communication portal and there is no invitation to contact them (you have to go to the DPO website to get an e-mail form).

I didn't care that the UFO's movement was being mischaracterized, but I deeply care that, in 2018, and especially given the company's nature, they would go into complete radio silence. They have multiple avenues of communication at their fingertips, and they choose to use none.

There is one thing worth bringing up, though. Both Hal Puthoff and Elizondo have been playing with fire by going on all these interviews. They're trying to preserve their security clearances, but they let out so much already (e.g., confirming leaks of classified documents, making long pauses before giving a non-answer-that's-actually-an-answer, describing classified radar data to give weight to their arguments, sharing conclusions reached from classified reports).

If anything, TTSA needs to go out of their way to prove that no classified information is being shared internally (and illegally). Putting out a faulty analysis is a pretty classic way of doing that. Kind of like not copying the entirety of the A+ student's homework. They take a hit to their credibility with the public, but if it means the DoD will release more compelling data, it's more than worth it.

But granted, that's wishful thinking on my part.

You know, what you say reminds me of the Watergate scandal back in 1973 when Nixon and his boys are discussing how to reveal what they have to reveal, and Erlichman suggests a “modified limited hangout.” And the term comes from the spy realm as I quote in this wiki

Limited hangout - Wikipedia
A limited hangout or partial hangout is, according to former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyVictor Marchetti, "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[1][2]

When I look at the two most public faces of TTSA, Elizondo and deLonge, I see Luis as deliberately clueless to the outside UFO community and Tom as deliberately contemptuous of those “outsiders.”

I wonder then if they are both perpetrating a “modified limited hangout” of disclosure which is designed to actually discredit and destroy true disclosure and once again put the “disclosure genie back into its bottle.”

 

[Realm]

Jeremy Corbell is "being told" things:

"I’m told it was NOT the same pilots... and the events were at least a year apart. I trust that information, so it’s a mystery now. I’m also told that PRF codes play no role, and are irrelevant. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

Funny how Corbell seems to be one of the first, if not the first, to initially make the claim that the Gimbal was from the East Coast and from 2015:
In an interview Jeremy Corbell just said the Gimbal video is from the East coast and was from 2015. • r/UFOs