Blink-182's Tom DeLonge's "To The Stars" UFO Disclosure Enterprise

Willie Kay

Member
It would also be a good idea for the military to try to identify UFOs in case they are significant, and to help understand why pilots (and their equipment) sometimes make mistakes.
Pilots can misidentify objects just like anyone else, however, I would like to hope that they were slightly (I stress slightly) better prepared to identify other airborne objects than your average individual in the street.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Pilots can misidentify objects just like anyone else, however, I would like to hope that they were slightly (I stress slightly) better prepared to identify other airborne objects than your average individual in the street.

They certainly are - both from experience and training. Fighter pilots especially. But unfortunately that higher capability means that when they DO make mistakes, however rarely, they (and others) are more prone to misinterpret them as genuine observations.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Yes, crowdsourcing is a great way to do it too, which makes their data collection app an encouraging idea.
isn't that what Project Bluebook did? and what MUFOn (and probably other countries) around the world has done already? Still not sure how reports of weird things people don't understand in the sky, will lead to building a Tardis type space ship.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They certainly are - both from experience and training. Fighter pilots especially. But unfortunately that higher capability means that when they DO make mistakes, however rarely, they (and others) are more prone to misinterpret them as genuine observations.

A classic example is US General and decorated fighter pilot Thomas McInerney who (in 2010) was convinced that an airplane leaving a contrail was a missile being launched off the coast of Los Angeles. Experience and expertise does not immunise anyone to mistakes in novel situations. Listen to the General here. Listen to his experience, his rank, his certainty, the deference given him him, and his total wrongness.
It was just a distant plane for Hawaii leaving a contrail, at an unusual perspective.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI_0hh26n6Q
 

John85

Member
isn't that what Project Bluebook did? and what MUFOn (and probably other countries) around the world has done already? Still not sure how reports of weird things people don't understand in the sky, will lead to building a Tardis type space ship.

Depends what the weird things are, doesn't it. If they're chinese lanterns, nothing will come of it. If they're 40ft tic tacs which descend from 80,000 ft to sea level, and zoom away at a rate that amazes Navy pilots, well...

The involvement of ex-DIA, CIA and Pentagon staff in this private/public benefit venture suggests there is something of value to be gained from the endeavor.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The involvement of ex-DIA, CIA and Pentagon staff in this private/public benefit venture suggests there is something of value to be gained from the endeavor.

That's not what the military thought:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111
It's just frustrated UFO enthusiasts wanting to keep looking
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
The involvement of ex-DIA, CIA and Pentagon staff in this private/public benefit venture suggests there is something of value to be gained from the endeavor.
don't get me wrong, I don't care if people want to spend their money searching for UFOs. If I ever make it to Loch Ness I am definitely wasting my money on a Nessie tour (even though it's biologically impossible for her to exist).

But no, all it suggests is a bunch of 'space boys' are still hoping we are important enough to be visited by ETs.

My point is, how can you say "of value" when decades and decades of the whole world searching has produced nada? and.. how does a crowd sourcing app help you build a Tardis?
 

John85

Member
That's not what the military thought:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111
It's just frustrated UFO enthusiasts wanting to keep looking

Is it possible that Reid was not being fully honest? Reid was a defense contractor, and defense contractors are not habitually forthcoming.

In England, the Ministry of Defence has maintained that 'UFO' sightings are 'of no defence significance' in its correspondence with members of the public and in media statements. An example is this response to a letter requesting information on the MOD's official stance regarding alien abduction:

Nick Pope, well known for being the civil servant in charge of a public, government UFO helpdesk in the 1990s, differs in his assessment of UFOs:

The Uninvited: an Expose of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon

Two very different views - one official, the other not - but both connected to the defense world. They can't both be right.
 

John85

Member
don't get me wrong, I don't care if people want to spend their money searching for UFOs. If I ever make it to Loch Ness I am definitely wasting my money on a Nessie tour (even though it's biologically impossible for her to exist).

But no, all it suggests is a bunch of 'space boys' are still hoping we are important enough to be visited by ETs.

My point is, how can you say "of value" when decades and decades of the whole world searching has produced nada? and.. how does a crowd sourcing app help you build a Tardis?

Because decades of searching (and poor bystanders not going looking) have turned up results beyond the scope of this thread. A crowdsourcing app is important for gathering data. For instance, what is the size, shape, appearance, luminosity, sound, movement, behavior of the unidentified phenomenon? If you find multiple consistent data points across regions, you have something to study. That will begin to influence the questions you can ask: how does it fly? Is it under intelligent control? Is it air-breathing? Does it emit radiation? How dense is it? What kind of acceleration can it withstand?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Is it possible that Reid was not being fully honest?

was it possible he was not being honest about the need for the program in the first place? :) You can't really paint someone as dishonest and then pick and choose the bits that fit your narrative to believe.

Nick Pope, well known for being the civil servant in charge of a public, government UFO helpdesk in the 1990s, differs in his assessment of UFOs:
I'm not sure holding an "abduction" believer up as evidence, is the way you want to go if you are trying to convince people about the legitimacy of TTS.

Because decades of searching (and poor bystanders not going looking) have turned up results beyond the scope of this thread
the scope of this thread is TTS.. so feel free to provide an example of these relevant results.

If you find multiple consistent data points across regions, you have something to study.
I would have thought Elizondo took a glance or two through the project bluebook cases. If you can build a spaceship from laymen descriptions, they should be able to do that with all the data already available, no?

If you find multiple consistent data points across regions, you have something to study. That will begin to influence the questions you can ask: how does it fly? Is it under intelligent control? Is it air-breathing? Does it emit radiation? How dense is it? What kind of acceleration can it withstand?
sounds like this is going to be a very very very long project.
 

John85

Member
was it possible he was not being honest about the need for the program in the first place? :) You can't really paint someone as dishonest and then pick and choose the bits that fit your narrative to believe.

I'm not sure holding an "abduction" believer up as evidence, is the way you want to go if you are trying to convince people about the legitimacy of TTS.

The contrasting views were both from the defense world - one being the official position of the UK government, the other from an individual who had a responsible position within the Ministry of Defence. They disagree. The MOD says there is nothing of any defence significance to UFOs. By extreme contrast, Nick Pope wrote that prosaic explanations could not account for all alien abduction cases. In all likelihood, one of the two views is not fully honest. That was enough to substantiate my point that people from the defense world are not habitually forthcoming on their subject areas. So when I said:

The involvement of ex-DIA, CIA and Pentagon staff in this private/public benefit venture suggests there is something of value to be gained from the endeavor

It is not sufficient to use what a staffer said Reid believed to claim:

That's not what the military thought

The military are not forthcoming. They are also not homogeneous, and there will be differences of opinion within and between institutions, teams and levels in the hierarchies. A totalizing view of 'the military' or 'the government' is more often a flaw in conspiracy theory thinking.

It's worth restating who the military/intelligence figures are that are involved in TTS, aside from Elizondo:

Jim Semivan
Steve Justice
Chris Mellon
Dr Norm Kahn
https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/

They believe it is not a waste of their time to launch a private/public benefit venture for the scientific investigation of UFOs. The most rational response to that should be curiosity. Why are the investing in this? Why are they making bold claims about seeking to develop technological applications? Why are they suggesting a link with consciousness? Why do they say there has been excessive secrecy over UFOs within the military? It's particularly important to note that several of these people would have been in a position to access relevant information, to know about the potential significance of observations, or to have seen advanced technologies already developed within industry. Are these people merely chasing lens flares and Chinese lanterns?

I would have thought Elizondo took a glance or two through the project bluebook cases. If you can build a spaceship from laymen descriptions, they should be able to do that with all the data already available, no?

Perhaps the spaceships are ours. You're suggesting there isn't much value in collecting more data? The more data, the better, considering that conclusions are not settled, and the subject is so controversial. What other response is possible? The answer to the question "More science?" is always "Yes please".
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
By extreme contrast, Nick Pope wrote that prosaic explanations could not account for all alien abduction cases. In all likelihood, one of the two views is not fully honest.

Why is that the most likely explanation? It seems far more likely that one of them (Pope) is simply incorrect.

Alien abductions is a step above unusual fly craft in terms of implausibility of it happening without significant evidence. Also getting a bit off topic here.

They believe it is not a waste of their time to launch a private/public benefit venture for the scientific investigation of UFOs. The most rational response to that should be curiosity. Why are the investing in this? Why are they making bold claims about seeking to develop technological applications? Why are they suggesting a link with consciousness? Why do they say there has been excessive secrecy over UFOs within the military?

Perhaps because they are big UFO/Sci-Fi fans whose wishful thinking outweighs their rationality. Perhaps they simply WANT to believe.
 

John85

Member
Perhaps because they are big UFO/Sci-Fi fans whose wishful thinking outweighs their rationality. Perhaps they simply WANT to believe.

In other words, we can dismiss what they're saying and the implications of their project because these senior defense and intelligence officials and trusted advisors are probably fantasists.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some people are, yes. Why should we suppose that these senior defense and intelligence officials are?
Who exactly are you talking about? DeLonge is clearly a fantasist. But it's probably not a useful term for everyone. People make mistakes. People indulge in motivated reasoning. Even highly trained experts. These things are known. So they are possible explanations for a variety of observations.
 

John85

Member
Who exactly are you talking about? DeLonge is clearly a fantasist. But it's probably not a useful term for everyone. People make mistakes. People indulge in motivated reasoning. Even highly trained experts. These things are known. So they are possible explanations for a variety of observations.

That's all generally true. Why should we regard the senior ex-DIA, ex-CIA and ex-Pentagon officials in particular as fantasists? These are Jim Semivan, Steve Justice, Chris Mellon, and Dr Norm Kahn.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's all generally true. Why should we regard the senior ex-DIA, ex-CIA and ex-Pentagon officials in particular as fantasists? These are Jim Semivan, Steve Justice, Chris Mellon, and Dr Norm Kahn.
Take Justice. You think his plan is anything other than fantasy?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You're suggesting there isn't much value in collecting more data?
No. I'm suggesting that they know 'more data' isn't going to help them build a spaceship. So they are fleecing a lot of people under false pretenses in my opinion. If they want to tell people.. "hey donate money so we can run this collection app and make movies about UFOs", that is fine.

But why all the gobley gook about building space ships? we already know these alleged spaceships can hover, stop on a dime, switch into warp speed etc etc. And apparently that isn't helping them build a space ship now. How can more visual data add to that. That's all I'm saying.
 

John85

Member
Take Justice. You think his plan is anything other than fantasy?

We should take then seriously and be curious if they are well-placed, senior, authoritative officials (or ex-officials). We should dismiss them if they are fantasists. What evidence is there that they are fantasists? It is circular to say they're fantasists because they want to study UFOs, and we should ignore their project on UFOs because they're fantasists.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
It is circular to say they're fantasists because they want to study UFOs
I think it's more that they make extraordinary claims with no evidence. Saying there is strong evidence for UFOs is an extraordinary claim.. we've never seen any such evidence.

Saying they can build a spaceship based on youtube videos is beyond an extraordinary claim.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
We should take then seriously and be curious if they are well-placed, senior, authoritative officials (or ex-officials). We should dismiss them if they are fantasists. What evidence is there that they are fantasists? It is circular to say they're fantasists because they want to study UFOs, and we should ignore their project on UFOs because they're fantasists.

I listened to what Justice had to say. It sounded like complete nonsense. I'm saying he's a fantasist because his plan for building a spaceship is utter nonsense. It's basically like "scientists will look at UFO videos, figure out how they work, and we'll have anti-gravity space warp drive in five years"
 

LucM

New Member
a circular thought could also be "we have to study ufo because we find nothing, we find nothing then we must study ufo". If you study dragons you will not find them, does it mean we must found more dragons research?
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Robert Sheaffer's blog - Dec 18

http://badufos.blogspot.com

 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
Harry Reid has a long history of corruption:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/03/corruption-scandals-led-to-harry-reids-abrupt-retirement/
Judicial Watch might be dismissed as having a far right bias, so I also went to the left leaning Los Angeles Times:http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jun/23/nation/na-sons23

Did he really give Robert Bigelow 22 million taxpayer dollars because he (Reid) is fascinated with UFO's? And where did this money really go? So far we know some of it went to MUFON, and some of it went to build a warehouse, or modify an existing building (reports differ), to store metal that was allegedly part of a flying saucer.


I live in Nevada, btw, and have long been aware of Reid.
 
Last edited:

John85

Member
The involvement of ex-DIA, CIA and Pentagon staff in this private/public benefit venture suggests there is something of value to be gained from the endeavor.

My point is, how can you say "of value" when decades and decades of the whole world searching has produced nada? and.. how does a crowd sourcing app help you build a Tardis?

Because decades of searching (and poor bystanders not going looking) have turned up results beyond the scope of this thread.

the scope of this thread is TTS.. so feel free to provide an example of these relevant results.

There are many results I could talk about, but for MB they have to be a) mainstream, and b) internet-based.

The UK government conducted a 3-year study of UAP sightings occurring between 1987 and 1997, releasing the report in 2006. The report concludes that a new, poorly understood, natural phenomenon accounts for the unexplained sightings. They describe the characteristics of this phenomenon, its physical, radiological and psychological effects, as well as its potential military applications, stating that the MOD had been informed of relevant results. They even appear to attribute the Belgian triangles to this phenomenon, whose appearance as we all know caused the Belgian Air Force to scramble F-16s. Nonetheless, the report concludes that the unexplained UAP do not pose a threat to the UK, and do not represent any foreign aircraft. It is the incompatibility of the findings with the conclusion that suggests there is fertile ground for major discoveries in the study of UFOs, and not merely meterological discoveries. Simply put, there is a phenomenon with great operational potential, but it is not understood, and the best explanation offered is novel, hypothetical, and untested. As the best explanation is only hypothetical, it is both impossible to be confident that this new phenomenon will turn out to be merely an extension of the familiar, and difficult to believe the MOD would presume it to be so, in advance of actually determining what it is.

The report says:

As to what these UAP might be, it says:

Specifically,

These persistent, buoyant plasmas can appear in formation:

The effects of these buoyant charged masses are numerous:

The possible value of understanding these phenomena is indicated:

Further:

And so, the conclusions and recommendations are:

And:

A more preposterous conclusion I could not imagine.

As such, when people from the defense and intelligence world (who may be considered in a position to know about UFOs) join together to launch a public investigative project, we should take it seriously.

Quotes taken from the below pages of the executive summary. The full PDF is available here

CR2.png CR3.png CR4.png CR5.png CR6.png CR7.png CR8.png
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As such, when people from the defense and intelligence world (who may be considered in a position to know about UFOs) join together to launch a public investigative project, we should take it seriously.

Why? If the actual military and intelligence services as a whole have determined that there's nothing worth investigating, then why exactly should we instead trust the few people who used to work there and are big fans of UFOs?

Why don't we instead just look at the actual evidence.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
If you go to this link you'll find that this was a report written by a single man, using pre-existing reports to the MoD (Ministry of Defense). https://books.google.com/books?id=K_R0CQAAQBAJ&pg=PT91&lpg=PT91&dq=exceptional+velocities+and+vanish,+they+can+reportedly+alter+their+direction+of+flight+suddenly+and+clearly+can+exhibit+aerodynamic+characteristics+well+beyond+those+of+any+known+aircraft+or+missile+-+either+manned+or+unmanned.&source=bl&ots=sxs8m9tmes&sig=4H5V8bxA2ap9M4gv67ojqiWwgw0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKlMT96JvYAhUHKWMKHaIYD5wQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=exceptional velocities and vanish, they can reportedly alter their direction of flight suddenly and clearly can exhibit aerodynamic characteristics well beyond those of any known aircraft or missile - either manned or unmanned.&f=false

In the author's words:

It just used raw reports from the general public that had never been investigated.
 
Last edited:

John85

Member
Why? If the actual military and intelligence services as a whole have determined that there's nothing worth investigating, then why exactly should we instead trust the few people who used to work there and are big fans of UFOs?

Why don't we instead just look at the actual evidence.

The basis of your objection is wrong. The report recommends that DI55, which is to say Defence Intelligence, no longer analyse UAP observations, but states that relevant findings related to technological applications were passed on to the MOD. That does not mean that there is nothing worth investigating, but the opposite. And we should not mistake the narrow (and doubtful) implication that DI55 will no longer be investigating UAP with the broader conclusion that no one else in the military will either.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
If you go to post 113 and follow the link, you'll find that this report is useless.

I highly recommend that you buy and read Allan Hendry's UFO Handbook.

https://www.amazon.com/Ufo-Handbook-Investigating-Evaluating-Reporting/dp/0385143486

The gist: Ninety-five percent of all properly taken and researched UFO reports can be resolved to IFO reports.

However Hendry also concluded that the 5 percent of cases he was unable to resolve had no unique features in relation to the IFO cases. It's possible that the 5 percent residual could also have been generated by the same processes as the IFO reports.
 
Last edited:

Count Otto Black

New Member
I'd like to point out that although this whole "building an actual flying saucer that breaks the laws of physics as we know them" kerfuffle is what gets all the publicity, on its website TTS provides a breakdown of how they plan to spend their money, starting at $50m, the most they were legally allowed to ask for, though apparently they hoped to raise even more. Here's the bottom end of the scale:

You will notice that if they raise $5m, and the way things are going they'll get about half of that, the only item on that list which could be interpreted as "actually building flying saucers" is the one second from bottom, which includes the words "research to benefit the public". It's true that $1.5m is earmarked for "acquisitions or strategic partnerships in the Aerospace and Science Divisions", but this seems to mean hiring people who know how to build spacecraft that use conventional technology and thus might actually work.

So he's only allocating a measly $75k, or 1.5% of the total sum raised (if he'd raised more starting capital, the proportion he planned to spend on these things would have been no more than 2% of the gross, no matter how large it was) to this harebrained scheme, and even that amount is shared among a ragbag of other worthy causes, such as "science and art education", whatever that may be, and donations to charities for war veterans. It looks as though he plans to spend more on comic books than he does on starships.

By the way, in case you're wondering, Our Two Dogs, Inc. is a company owned by Tom DeLonge and registered as a hot dog stand, at whose listed street address there is nothing resembling a fast food joint at all. Curiouser and curiouser!

Oh, one other thing. Since the absolute minimum TTS required to commence operations was $1m, if it hadn't raised even that much (and remember, $1m is only 2% of what they were hoping to get), those few unlucky investors would have been guaranteed a return of absolutely nothing. Bearing this in mind, a graph of how the number of investors and the amount invested rose over time would be interesting, if anybody has the figures and can be bothered to plot the graph.

Here's why. As soon as the fundraiser was launched, there was a flurry of investment from the faithful who were always going to buy shares at the first opportunity, but it very quickly tailed off, ands within a few days it had stuck at about $500k, and was rising so painfully slowly that it was obviously never going to get anywhere near that magic figure of $1m. Then, two weeks in, something odd happened. Literally overnight, although the number of investors hadn't risen dramatically, the cash total had trebled! It almost looked like somebody added $1m to the pot just when Tom needed that to happen so he wouldn't lose face.

The fact that the company would now at least attempt to do something and return on investments was no longer automatically going to be zero led to another flurry of investing almost identical to the one right at the start, and tapered off in an identical way, with about twice the previous number of shareholders and about $2m, or about twice what they had before, not counting that mysterious million. Since when both figures have continued to climb ever so slowly, even after the release of those long-awaited and inevitably underwhelming videos.

So it looks very much as though TTS not only had to borrow $600k from its own CEO through a shell company with a silly name disguised as an invisible burger joint (which the investors are going to have to pay him back, in addition to the $100k he's contractually guaranteed every year for the use of his name and music, which everybody knows they need to make spaceships with), he also had to buy almost half the shares so far sold to prevent an embarrassing failure before he's even started. Does anyone have a list of who invested how much and when? Because given Tom's extremely juvenile sense of humour (the company is called TTS AAS for crying out loud!), I bet there's a cluster of people suddenly investing far more than anybody else all at the same time who have names like Hugh Janus and Ivor Woody.
 

qed

Senior Member
An interesting glitch on their home page:Investors gone up from 2561 to 2583 (+22)
Amount raised reduced from $2,256,397 to $1,663,595 (-$592,802)

However as of right now it's back up to 2,587 & $2,265,819
That's simply because the capital is in Bitcoin.
 

Redshift7

New Member
The To The Stars Academy homepage currently shows zero investors and zero dollars raised. It's been that way for at least the past 2 hours. Screenshot_20171225-001451.png
 

sitarzan

Member
I don’t fully understand what part the entertainment/film side plays in all this...

My guess is the "entertainment" part is about them cashing in on the whole docutainment programming boon; à la The History Channel, Discovery, Nat Geo and whatnot.

I'm a total disbeliever in extraterrestrial visitation, ghosts, Big Foot, etc. But I've watched shows like UFO Hunters, Hangar 1: The UFO Files, Unsealed Alien Files, Finding Big Foot because I found it very "entertaining" to pick them apart and identify the flaws and fallacies in what they say and do. For me, watching shows like that is like going to the critical-thinking gym; they give my incredulity muscle a good workout.

And of course believers are entertained by them because shows like that pander to their beliefs.

Also there's something entertaining about the sheer goofiness and unbelievabilty of those kind of shows. That cartooniness together with just enough of a nod to science fiction is the same reason that a lot of people (myself included) find Futurama so entertaining.

And too, whenever real scientists inevitably criticize TTS AAS on scientific grounds, they can always play the, "We never claimed it as a scientific certainty; it was always presented as merely Entertainment" card.

The overt "entertainment" angle is the only thing that sets Delonge's thing apart from all the other similar endeavors @Z.W. Long listed. If Delonge has any success in this game, it will be measured (in my opinion) in how well he "entertains" us (including skeptics and believers).
 

bume

Member
There's a new article in New York magazine that refers to the earlier Nimitz story that was linked at the beginning of this thread:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/new-york-times-ufo-report.html

I hadn't paid attention to that link earlier but now that I read it, it really changed my view of what TTSA has actually published so far. That story from March 2015 already contains even more details and names than what TTSA has now been promoting, and is apparently written by someone who knows Fravor personally. It also mentions that the video was already leaked to YouTube years ago.

It also contains this likely reference to Elizondo's group:

All that doesn't really take anything away from the actual case, it is pretty amazing assuming what we are being told is true, but as for TTSA it seems the Gimbal video, that lacks any other details and is being discussed in another thread here, seems to be the only new piece of information they have provided so far. Unless that has also been available somewhere already...

That story from 2015 doesn't claim that the picture in question here is in any way connected to the event, and also contains other unrelated images for apparent illustration purposes only. So to me this curious coincidence hints that TTSA has probably used that story as their source, even though they had direct access to Elizondo.
 
Top