Luis Elizondo's Claims of Coming UFO Disclosure
- Thread starter Ann K
- Start date
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
It's hard to say when no one is exactly sure what he's basing his claims on. Claiming the US government has UFOs and aliens is at this point an unsubstantiated claim, but we can't say it's a lie as we don't know what he knows. IF there is a government UFO program as he describes it, then obviously not. IF he knows full well nothing like that exists and he's just saying it does for money or fame or whatever, then yes.
However, there is a big grey area in between. IF he's saying false things but believes they are true, then I wouldn't call that lying.
Then there is the area of exaggeration. I think there is some serious questions here about at least his claims of being the head of AATIP. As noted by @Mendel in post #40, when asked to describe exactly what AATIP was, he deferred to his "security oath". He's claimed over the years to have been the head of AATIP, a big US government UFO program.
But Lacatski claims he created the acronym AATIP to hide the existence of the unclassified AASWAP. There are records of AAWSAP being funded to the tune of $22 million and even Elizondo claims he took over ATTIP from Lacatscki of AASWAP. But it appears AATIP was never funded and never had a staff. At best, AATIP seems to be a UFO lunch club that Elizondo and Stratton did as a side gig. IF AATIP was the follow up to AASWAP and AAWSAP never got SAP (Special Access Program) credentials,, then neither did the AATIP. So, why all the "I can't say".
Mendel
Senior Member.
The problem is that he hasn't been "caught" in any truths, either.
None of these statements have proven true.
2022 GQ interview, youtube
Elizondo's answer to that question is the 2004 Nimitz encounter which suffers from a lack of data and contradictory witness accounts.
Elizondo says there is more convincing data out there, but invokes his security oath.
Article: Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs[1] (also known as the "Wizard of Oz" and, during his reign, as "Oz the Great and Terrible" or the "Great and Powerful Oz") is a fictional character in the Land of Oz created by American author L. Frank Baum.
The Wizard is one of the characters in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unseen for most of the novel, he is the ruler of the Land of Oz and highly venerated by his subjects. Believing he is the only man capable of solving their problems, Dorothy and her friends travel to the Emerald City, the capital of Oz, to meet him. Oz is very reluctant to meet them, but eventually each is granted an audience, one by one. In each of these occasions, the Wizard appears in a different form, once as a giant head, once as a beautiful fairy, once as a horrible monster, and once as a ball of fire. When, at last, he grants an audience to all of them at once, he seems to be a disembodied voice.
Eventually, it is revealed that Oz is actually none of these things, but rather an ordinary conman from Omaha, Nebraska, who has been using elaborate magic tricks and props to make himself seem "great and powerful".
Note the same motif of salvation.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Oh.
He did lie when he had the Navy videos declassified, saying they were to be used for a contractor's database, when he was planning to publish them via the New York Times.
https://www.theblackvault.com/documentarchive/inside-the-pentagons-release-of-three-ufo-videos/
Also:
Article: Source: Mr. Luis Elizondo Slide Presentation, MUFON Conference, July 29, 2018. Slide Graphic. Excerpt from the text:
"2007 — Congressional language establishes the 'Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program', aka AAWSAP"
Note: This contradicts the now established start date of AAWSAP which was later in 2008, not 2007. The bid solicitation was not published until August of 2008 and not awarded to anyone until September of 2008. To date, there is not a single document that shows anything happened with AAWSAP in 2007.
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's a promise of salvation, building up unfounded hope that brings their faction support.
UK residents may recall a similar pattern with Brexit, which was supposed to fix the UK's problems, and didn't (but made some worse). US residents may remember MAGA, which fell similarly flat.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Article: Steven Macon Greer (June 28, 1955) is an American ufologist[1] and retired physician who founded the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) and the Disclosure Project, which seeks the disclosure of alleged classified UFO information.
In 2001, Greer held a briefing on a "Disclosure Project Briefing Document". The "Executive Summary of the Disclosure Project Briefing Document" is available via https://drstevengreer.com/document-library/ .
Article: 
This is what the disclosure movement is all about.
P.S.:
See also:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uap-disinformation-narrative.11754/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/dr-stephen-greer.4679/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/si...t-aliens-anti-gravity-coverup-meditatio.1644/
plus various other mentions on Metabunk.
Last edited:
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
Yes actually, one of the old networked group members actually did studies specifically surrounding this. Kit Green. Kit was connected with that old "The Aviary" group that basically had the same odd "disclosure" aims - they were the kings of information, and since they know better than everyone, it is their right and need to drip disclosure to avert some "catastrophic" incident from broad, immediate disclosure, including from their own frame the allowance of manipulating the public to achieve this aim.
We lack depth of info about the new networked group (at least Elizondo, Stratton, Mellon, and Nell) but they slowly appear to be taking on a very similar view and even presenting it insanely similarly, for example the whole drip feeding disclosure to avert a "catastrophic disclosure".
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/c...gnitive-neuroscience-and-related-technologies
https://www.amazon.com/Mirage-Men-Adventure-Espionage-Psychological/dp/1602398003
"
"In a country that has a large, educated population there is a large subset of individuals who suffer from what's called paraphrenia. Paraphrenia is a form of mental illness that doesn't interfere with your everyday life. It means that you can have a delusion and not be crazy, a delusion that you can confine and control. Many of us have one corner of the mind that is delusional - I bet you that I do.
'I might, for example, be religious - I'm an Episcopalian, though as such, I am protected from diagnosis, as are all the UFO buffs, because a large social structure of shared beliefs, like a religion, cannot be a delusion. So all those people who believe that they are being beamed at by the government can no longer be diagnosed as crazy - there are just too many of them.
'But, if there is a condition that is threatening to the social structure - like the idea that the aliens are here and they are taking our babies, or that God hates people of a certain creed or colour - and if people who believe in that kind of delusion band together, they can end up encouraging each other to get a lot sicker, or they strap on belts and make themselves human bombs. So we have to know how to deal with these people and how to prevent them from being dangerous to others.
'This applies to the UFO problem. If something really strange in the area of UFOs is true, then what do we do about conveying that information to the public? First we consider what may be the basic facts: maybe there are civilised lifeforms elsewhere in the universe; maybe they visited us in their spaceships a couple of times and then went back home; perhaps they left a vehicle or some technology behind and we've spent a lot of time and money trying to figure out how to use it. And there may be people in the government who believe that this did happen, and believe that the information needs to be public knowledge, because perhaps someone outside of the government will be able to make sense of their technology. But there's another group of people in power who say, "No, it will make them sick to know all this, we can't let the story out, it's too dangerous."
'So, what do we do? There are studies on both sides of the problem. Some show that people will go crazy and jump of bridges when they're presented with this information. Others, however, say that if you don't want them to go crazy, what you do is systematically desensitize their fears.
'If you are a psychiatrist with a patient you can do that in a very methodical way. If you are a sociologist working with a group of students at a university you can do this in a very structured and experimental way. But if you are a government with a population it's a lot more complicated. Sure, there are those who are just going to shrug and say, "I always knew the aliens were real, it's no big deal." But you also know that some of them are nuttier than a fruitcake and could cause a lot of trouble. So we have to ask ourselves how we can tell people what they deserve to know and, maybe, what they need to know?
'The way to do it is to construct a framework whereby they can parse out the things that they've heard that are not true, and you whittle it down to a manageable story. A story like this: "There were three spaceships that came here over thirty years, and we've got one of them. We can't figure out how it works, we've crashed it because there's a lot of physics that we've still got to learn. We do have something that's like a magnethydrodynamic toroid, and it really did get a craft of the ground, but it smelled bad and it killed a couple of pilots. And we're really sorry about that, but we did it because we've got this machine that came from another planet, and we need to know how it works." '
'How do you tell people that story? If it's true?' he added, almost parenthetically.
"If you were to give them the core story right off the bat, they'd get sick, so you do it slowly over ten or twenty years.You put out a bunch of movies, a bunch of books, a bunch of stories, a bunch of Internet memes about reptilian aliens eating our children, about all the crazy stuff that we've seen recently in Serpo. Then one day you say, "Hey, all that stuff is nonsense, relax, it's not that bad, you don't have to worry, the reality is this..." - and then you give them the real story."
"In a country that has a large, educated population there is a large subset of individuals who suffer from what's called paraphrenia. Paraphrenia is a form of mental illness that doesn't interfere with your everyday life. It means that you can have a delusion and not be crazy, a delusion that you can confine and control. Many of us have one corner of the mind that is delusional - I bet you that I do.
'I might, for example, be religious - I'm an Episcopalian, though as such, I am protected from diagnosis, as are all the UFO buffs, because a large social structure of shared beliefs, like a religion, cannot be a delusion. So all those people who believe that they are being beamed at by the government can no longer be diagnosed as crazy - there are just too many of them.
'But, if there is a condition that is threatening to the social structure - like the idea that the aliens are here and they are taking our babies, or that God hates people of a certain creed or colour - and if people who believe in that kind of delusion band together, they can end up encouraging each other to get a lot sicker, or they strap on belts and make themselves human bombs. So we have to know how to deal with these people and how to prevent them from being dangerous to others.
'This applies to the UFO problem. If something really strange in the area of UFOs is true, then what do we do about conveying that information to the public? First we consider what may be the basic facts: maybe there are civilised lifeforms elsewhere in the universe; maybe they visited us in their spaceships a couple of times and then went back home; perhaps they left a vehicle or some technology behind and we've spent a lot of time and money trying to figure out how to use it. And there may be people in the government who believe that this did happen, and believe that the information needs to be public knowledge, because perhaps someone outside of the government will be able to make sense of their technology. But there's another group of people in power who say, "No, it will make them sick to know all this, we can't let the story out, it's too dangerous."
'So, what do we do? There are studies on both sides of the problem. Some show that people will go crazy and jump of bridges when they're presented with this information. Others, however, say that if you don't want them to go crazy, what you do is systematically desensitize their fears.
'If you are a psychiatrist with a patient you can do that in a very methodical way. If you are a sociologist working with a group of students at a university you can do this in a very structured and experimental way. But if you are a government with a population it's a lot more complicated. Sure, there are those who are just going to shrug and say, "I always knew the aliens were real, it's no big deal." But you also know that some of them are nuttier than a fruitcake and could cause a lot of trouble. So we have to ask ourselves how we can tell people what they deserve to know and, maybe, what they need to know?
'The way to do it is to construct a framework whereby they can parse out the things that they've heard that are not true, and you whittle it down to a manageable story. A story like this: "There were three spaceships that came here over thirty years, and we've got one of them. We can't figure out how it works, we've crashed it because there's a lot of physics that we've still got to learn. We do have something that's like a magnethydrodynamic toroid, and it really did get a craft of the ground, but it smelled bad and it killed a couple of pilots. And we're really sorry about that, but we did it because we've got this machine that came from another planet, and we need to know how it works." '
'How do you tell people that story? If it's true?' he added, almost parenthetically.
"If you were to give them the core story right off the bat, they'd get sick, so you do it slowly over ten or twenty years.You put out a bunch of movies, a bunch of books, a bunch of stories, a bunch of Internet memes about reptilian aliens eating our children, about all the crazy stuff that we've seen recently in Serpo. Then one day you say, "Hey, all that stuff is nonsense, relax, it's not that bad, you don't have to worry, the reality is this..." - and then you give them the real story."
In a skew from this within PSYOP and Covert Influence there is a recognized use area of what largely just gets called "supernatural" themes and narratives, it's not very common but it happens from time to time, there's an often given example with Landsdale and the Huk "Vampires".
In regards to strategic and strategic-military deception, we also know that during the cold war both the US and USSR played ball against each other here - public populations were involved but in a tiny lesson, the public is almost never the actual audience, the public is used as a channel to reach deception targets where the public is seen as an agreeable channel. A lot of the odd parascience programs both nations did were initially predicated off beliefs that the other was doing it (whether they actually were or just pushing disinformation about it).
I believe the wording selection there is using hypothesis generation in the intelligence analysis sense. Granted we don't know the backend, I'd presume they're referencing something like using Analysis of Competing Hypothesis in relation to very specific details based off data being reactively interacted with. Or in shorter terms probably something like they're using pre-existing and accessible data to create and weight hypothesis to use in presentation to back their efforts (towards the government).
LOE matrices like that are a bit odd too, you do move between phases but they also all act consistently because the prior phases and stages build up key drivers to allowing the rest to carry out or achieve their specific goals. Notice how at the top there's the "On Target" "Off Target" etc, you are kind of consistently acting towards them all since you're aligning and synchronizing it all back to a broader intent, and each is critical for the next to be successful.
Mendel
Senior Member.
neither the old network nor the new network has ever "drip-fed" anything worthwhile.
it seems to be a rationalisation for the inability to do what actual whistleblowers do, and that is to get the information published ASAP.
(They have no information.)
if I were to inoculate a population, I would feed it the truth, but begin by using untrustworthy sources, and then escalate the level of trust.
That's bound to work better than to continously change the story.
The drip-feed approach is better if you want to build support for a fake narrative, as it is more immune to scrutiny.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
Not saying they have, just that they're presenting similar views in that regard of what they think they're doing.
The bottom two parts are a debate for another thread probably? Neither are really inaccurate or accurate, there's worlds more factors involved impacting it that'd act as key drivers into which is more efficient, though in some cases that'd be the way.
Earlier this year, the UAP Disclosure Act was added to the NDAA by Chuck Schumer. Link here:
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf
Over the last couple of weeks, a group of Republicans, some of which have direct ties to the aeospace industry have made an intense campaign to either gut or remove the UAP Disclosure Act entirely. They seem particularly upset about the "eminent domain" clause. Note that if there really was a crash retrieval program which was being run by aerospace companies, they would have the most to lose from this legislation.
Question for the skeptics: If David Grusch's claims of a crash retrieval program are all just fake, nonsense, malarkey, etc. Then why would there be so much time, energy, and money being spent to block this legislation? If there was nothing there than why would they care? I'm trying to understand the skeptic position, because this push back to me is almost a smoking gun that there is something really there.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/uap_amendment.pdf
Over the last couple of weeks, a group of Republicans, some of which have direct ties to the aeospace industry have made an intense campaign to either gut or remove the UAP Disclosure Act entirely. They seem particularly upset about the "eminent domain" clause. Note that if there really was a crash retrieval program which was being run by aerospace companies, they would have the most to lose from this legislation.
Question for the skeptics: If David Grusch's claims of a crash retrieval program are all just fake, nonsense, malarkey, etc. Then why would there be so much time, energy, and money being spent to block this legislation? If there was nothing there than why would they care? I'm trying to understand the skeptic position, because this push back to me is almost a smoking gun that there is something really there.
It really seems like the opposite. Schumer is spending time trying to get it passed.
Source: https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1731826353152958713
But there's simply a lack of support for it across the board, so any small opposition (say, not liking eminent domain, as Republicans don't) means it's easy to be nixed.
Discussed in more depth by D. Dean Johnson:
Source: https://twitter.com/ddeanjohnson/status/1731811483871306138
External Quote:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Which Republicans?
The US aerospace industry is vast and linked to members of both parties.
Lockheed Martin:
External Quote:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/who-we-are.htmlExternal Quote:
Located in the 8th district of Maryland:
Northrup Grumman:
https://www.northropgrumman.com/who-we-are/contact-us-northrop-grummanExternal Quote:
Virgina's 4th district:
General Dynamics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_DynamicsExternal Quote:
Near Falls Church VA, see above.
Boeing:
That's the big 4, all HQed in heavily Democratic areas. Most of the other big Aerospace companies that may have gotten crashed UFOs in the past have since been acquired/merged with these companies.
EG&G has always a big boogeyman in UFOlogical circles, but the name hasn't been used in over 10 years.
EG&G:
External Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EG&G#EG&G's_clientsExternal Quote:
External Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amentum_(company)External Quote:
So, if EG&G had crashed UFOs, by now Amentum has them and they're based in Germantown MD, real close to Bethesda, so see Lockheed Martin above.
Not to say Republicans don't get money from defense contractors, but it's a bit bipartisan.
How much money and time is being spent? As Mick pointed out above, Republicans in general don't like eminent domain and are going to be opposed to any expansion of it. They see it as government overreach and infringement on property rights.
So, opposing an expansion of eminent domain while also screwing with Schummer is standard party politics, and not a "smoking gun".
I've had a few similar discussions with people about this legislation and I warned them not to put too much stock in it. Politicians come up with all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. Those that think this legislation is designed to produce discloser miss that it could just be a calling the bluff.
Recall, it was Republicans Burchett, Gaetz and Luna that were the public face of the UAP hearings with Grusch, the proponents if you will. I could see Schummer calling their bluff. He introduces legislation that authorizes anyone and everyone to come forward with their UFO stories. If no one credible comes forward, who looks foolish?
Chuck Schumer has been a big cheese in Congress a long time. He knows and has worked with several generations of senior members of the military and intel community. Including people who would know of the existence of a UFO collecting office, if there is one. It would have been a simple task for him to query them about this legislation and ask them "Any problem with this legislation? Does such an office exist?". And if they was anyone in that group who saw a problem with this they would have contacted Schumer, and he would not be supporting it.
Making certain Republicans look silly is part of this I suspect, but the big reason he would support this is simply to curry votes. Make the true believers happy, come across as open minded on this and related issues. There is no downside for him in supporting this.
Mendel
Senior Member.
You forget that large parts of the population still sort UFO believers next to Flat Earthers and tinfoil hatters.If politicians push too hard on this, they'll be seen as not worth taking seriously. This is especially true for the Democrat electorate who see the MAGA people as irrational conspiracy theorists anyway.
Schumer's message is, "we Dem's are not the ones obstructing disclosure", depriving Rep's of owning this issue, but he probably doesn't want to send the message that the Dem's believe in UFOs. That much support would come with a downside.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
This is the exact same sort of language all the 'Planet Nibiru' conspiracists use. It's coming soon ! Never mind that there were alleged photos of Planet Nibiru appearing as large as The Moon 10 years ago. All the 'haters' must have somehow changed the orbit of Nibiru and scared it off and now it is coming next year. And the year after that. And the year after that......etc, etc. Oh ye of little faith !
Scaramanga
Senior Member
And the true irony is that Elizondo's own request form for the 'Go Fast' video describes it as a 'balloon'.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
I've never liked the whole contractor claims here, even the whistleblowers are all part of it. Mellon works with a cornucopia of defense contractors making technology for aircraft, Elizondo's made continuous references to going back into contracting, SOL Foundation is registered through Ignite Fueling which is another contractor.
Don't forget the major investment companies people get funds from too, there's a lot of those ran by folks who put a lot of money into defense matters. Schumer for example has received campaign donations from KKR, who recently put a massive chunk of money towards aerospace R&D.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/charles-e-schumer/summary?cid=N00001093
https://www.swfinstitute.org/news/77034/kkr-makes-big-play-in-u-s-military-industrial-sector
On external interests, skipping over to Burchett and Luna, both of them have been participating in a campaign ran by Shellenberger in relation to the "censorship" claims and Twitter etc. Some of the opposition to them on the UAP topic coincidentally falls exactly in line with this.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I don't understand this paragraph, could you please elaborate?
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
In regards to the whole "Twitter Files" ordeal and the government bodies monitoring Misinformation, Disinformation, and Malign Information related to the 2020 election season. Shellenberger has been one of the key individuals behind that campaign.
https://censorshipindustrialcomplex.org/
Keeping links limited to prevent having to snip hundreds of pictures and making a massive wall.
In re Burchett;
Source: https://youtu.be/-Fo_yD8r3w4
(Hard to note down specific times he speaks in short, I'll sparse through it and edit with times that specifically have him but it'll take a bit, they jumped back and forth between speakers the entire time here so it wasn't structured very well)
Source: https://twitter.com/RepTimBurchett/status/1624081460326985728?lang=en
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1515089
In re Luna:
https://luna.house.gov/posts/rep-lu...-tech-censorship-and-future-plans-in-congress
Mendel
Senior Member.
Ah, the whole "we need Twitter to allow us to post Hunter Biden's duck pics" bruhaha etc.? While simultaneously pulling sex-ed and gender-ed books from libraries and schools, for the same reason?
Due to lack of international relevance, this one has pretty much passed me by, fortunately.
But I can see how the die-hard "anti-government" folks would unite over this.
Haliate2854
Member
One thing working for them is that they are all very tightly wound together, its a pretty tight group of people, and many of them have been working together for a long time.
I dont think its conspiratorial to wonder if they collaborate together on how to address things, because they so regularly do it in public (collaborate in public I mean, they go to the same places/conventions/seminars/weekend events and often appear together on stage).
I am very happy a thread about this guys most wild claim exists, after reading many of Lues tweets/images listed here I can confidently say he loves phrases like "we may" and "I think".
Even his most recent tweet posted here, he said "ongoing efforts are underway" and that they would "reveal themselves by early to mid 2024", and speaks of potential sabotage being the reason for secrecy.
This is a VERY specific choice of words, because it almost sounds like hes implying there will be results by then, but in fact just means that the "efforts" currently going on behind the scenes will be released to public, it sounds to me like hes just trying to keep interest in the topic floating.
So I.E, Lue could say "We can reveal now that we have a dedicated team of people visiting government officials people to help disclosure, these are those people, yes they are ex-officials how did you know that? they are very credible!"
Is that about right?
Whatever Lue ends up bringing to the table, my bet, is it will probably be very boring to the people here, myself included, but I am always interested in the new lore drops.
I dont think its conspiratorial to wonder if they collaborate together on how to address things, because they so regularly do it in public (collaborate in public I mean, they go to the same places/conventions/seminars/weekend events and often appear together on stage).
I am very happy a thread about this guys most wild claim exists, after reading many of Lues tweets/images listed here I can confidently say he loves phrases like "we may" and "I think".
Even his most recent tweet posted here, he said "ongoing efforts are underway" and that they would "reveal themselves by early to mid 2024", and speaks of potential sabotage being the reason for secrecy.
This is a VERY specific choice of words, because it almost sounds like hes implying there will be results by then, but in fact just means that the "efforts" currently going on behind the scenes will be released to public, it sounds to me like hes just trying to keep interest in the topic floating.
So I.E, Lue could say "We can reveal now that we have a dedicated team of people visiting government officials people to help disclosure, these are those people, yes they are ex-officials how did you know that? they are very credible!"
Is that about right?
Whatever Lue ends up bringing to the table, my bet, is it will probably be very boring to the people here, myself included, but I am always interested in the new lore drops.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Here's a thought: If he has real stuff that he can't yet release, he could release an encrypted dump, or at least precis, of it, and then only release the key when the time is right. That would prove that he had it now, and wasn't just making up stuff later depending on the prevailing wind conditions.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I take it as just another layer in the onion of discolsuer. The claim is always that the government is covering up. But at some point, if enough congress people dig into it, they should be able to find something. Granted, having found it they may say, "I can't reveal what I found due to national security", but that would at least say they found something.
After nothing came of the UAP hearings, congressman Burchette and others had a SCIF hearing. He came out of the SCIF saying something like "If the UFOs still exist they are beyond government oversight. They are in the hands of the defense contractors." The evidence, the alien bodies, the crashed UFOs are always just one more layer away. Disclosure is just around the corner.
It is called the "Invisible collage".
Mendel
Senior Member.
No, it's not. It's "college".
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/uaps-bigelow-and-the-invisible-college.11850/
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Yeah, but it does look like it was done by a primary-schooler out of strips of cloth, coloured string, macaroni, and that glue that tastes funny.
The thing is people such Elizondo, Garry Nolan ect appeared to have supported the recent legislation. They aren't just saying you need to believe me.
As a neuroscientist I'm a big proponent of dispelling the myth that autism is caused by vaccinations. However, as a scientist I cannot just say no it's not and shout show me the evidence. I was actually part of the study which showed that the evidence presented didn't point towards being causative of autism. Some people complained that that was a waste of money. At the time people complained that this study was a waste of money because we "know the answer". Actually the conspiracies are a unlikely in my humble opinion but we couldn't say for definite and a study would have helped sway public opinion.
So when I heard that there was legislation that aimed to provide data to the public about the UAP topic so that scientists, historians of the public I was happy. I was remined of the autism study, although similar in that it would reveal new information, the UAP legislation would yield information in an area that we know far less about. This is a lot less straightforward than the autism study as we have no idea what's being reported when people report craft ect. I have no way to validate whether the frankly mad claims about crashed alien tech have any validty. I would find it hard to believe aliens and I don't want to even speculate on extra dimensional beings. There's no reason for that currently, and we need more data. Simple as that. That said this was the way Eliozondo, Coulthart, Garry Nolan and others could put try to get the data released.
So we can talk about silly options like "why doesn't a former intelligence service operative break NDAs ect" but this was a legal mechanism. I'm sorry to say guys but in this case the UAP "believers" as you like to categorize (excuse the z, Amercian here) did put there money where their mouth is and call for this legislation and the debunkers didn't and even rallied against it in some cases.
So, sorry but Elizondo and others are putting themselves forward. The pushed for a bill that would or wouldn't reveal the information they talked about. The debunkers were on the wrong side here.
Eli
I am a full blown believer but I opposed the legislation for political reasons. It would have created a very powerful board that would have been appointed by Biden and confirmed by the Senate Ds. It was a power grab to control this issue by a democrat aligned group of UFO activists like Elizondo, Mellon, Nolan, and Sheehan (who are all hard core partisan democrats) backed by John Podesta.
The compromised legislation is much better IMHO.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Did that study have measurable effects on
• medical practice?
• the anti-vaxx movement?
Of course. It is cited as evidence against claims.
More information is never a bad thing.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I respectfully disagree with you here. As I've pointed out in another thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/new-ufo-book-getting-a-lot-of-attention.13258/#post-306749External Quote:
There is lots of UFO data out there. Your notion that Elizondo et al. are trying to get "data released" pre-supposes that there is in fact a trove of UFO data being held by the government. They may be calling for the release of this supposed data because they really believe it exists or they could be calling for the release of non-existent data so as to claim an ongoing coverup and keep the whole mystery train rolling. Or somewhere in between.
I've yet to see who these "debunkers" are that railed against this legislation. Some have certainly said it seems a waste of time and money, but giving the history of UFOs and the government that seems a logical critique.
When Elizondo came out in 2017, government disclosure was imminent. Never happened. When Grusch came out and said he would go before congress, we were going to get disclosure. Instead, he said less to congress than he did to Coulthart and various podcasters. Then congress got into a SCIF to find out once and for all. They came out saying "We can't find any UFOs in the governments hands. The contractors must have them". And so on. Why would we expect this new bill to produce any new useful information?
Excellent work. But, you had a known diagnosis in Autism, and a hypothesis that thimerosal (originally) in the MMR vaccine a known medical treatment/intervention caused the diagnosis. You showed this to be false. I assume you continued when the rate of MMR, or the age it was given or other hypothesis that replaced thimerosal were suggested. Again, shown to be false.
What's the hypothesis that this legislation is going to help with? The government is hiding crashed UFOs? The government has aliens? President Eisenhower met with the Nordics who warned him about the Greys? Bigfoot travels in UFOs? As these are all aspects of UFOlogy, what is this legislation supposed to be addressing? That people in the know can now come out and tell their UFO stories?
That's happened for years. From John Lear, Bill Cooper and Bob Lazar to Lue Elizondo and David Grusch, lots of government people have come out and told all kinds of UFO stories. Some are more credible than others, but what they all have in common is a complete lack of evidence. Why should we expect yet another government UFO panel or study group or whatever it is to come up with anything different?
My prediction is that IF this bill passes, we might get a few to maybe lots of government folks coming forward and telling yet more UFO stories. There will be no actual evidence. When this becomes apparent, excuses will be made, similar the recently put forth notion that Kirkpatrick of AARO had a "secret" board unknown to the public or even congress that was made up of "gatekeepers" actully controlling AARO. Or that the nefarious defense contractors took all the UFOs and hid them away or some other such nonsense.
This will result in the call for "more openness", "more studies", "more data", and "more legislation" and so on.
Scaramanga
Senior Member
Well, no.....this is an issue I have myself raised numerous times. If someone...Elizondo, Grusch, other whistleblowers...claims that their NDA covers illegal activities then the NDA itself is surely illegal. These people can't have it both ways. They cannot hide behind the legality of NDAs or security classification for activities that they are claiming were never legal in the first place.
I mean...someone tell me that one can have a legally binding NDA for an illegal project. This I have to hear.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Looks like they cannot. Speaking authoritatively as a Not Even Slightly Lawyer Who Just Checked Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreementExternal Quote:
It is of course possible, even likely, that the situation has some nuances -- if everything were cut and dried then lawyers would not make as much money! ^_^
Scaramanga
Senior Member
And there you have the paradox. UFO whistleblowers blowing the lid on 'illegal' projects....whilst simultaneously hiding behind what would then be illegal NDA agreements. As you say, there may be more to it. Perhaps someone here can fill us in on what that 'more' actually is, as I'm far from being the only person who finds this dichotomy baffling.
Mendel
Senior Member.
That's not what I asked.
Josef Mengele would agree, I would not.
Even ethical research does not happen in a vacuum. The decision to take some issues more seriously than others has consequences that are not neutral.
Was it a good thing that humanity found out how to build nuclear bombs?
(I just remembered phrenology. Phrenology research generated "more information", but most of it was "a bad thing".)
There is another issue at play here along these lines.
If one of these individuals "spilled the beans" would they actually be prosecuted for it? Prosecuting them would be the government CONFIRMING that what they said was actually true! Wouldn't the government, to maintain the cover-up, declare the statements nonsense and ignore them. Prosecution is confirmation that what they said was actually classified information and so true.
If these people started talking about the government holding leprechauns in secret vaults would the government prosecute them? Of course not, the government is not holding leprechauns in secret vaults. So no crime has been committed by them saying so.
For people who claim to be so incredibly eager to disclose things why hasn't one of them actually done so? What's a few years in prison in return for the adoration of the UFO community, and the rest of the world?
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's the same as with UFOlogy in general.
Hypothetically, if Grusch found some "unexplained" secret projects, as UFOlogist he can confidently declare them UFO projects, with UFOlogy's "unexplained=UFO" dogma.
But as a realist, Grusch knows that there's a good chance that these projects have a non-UFO explanation; there's simply nobody who gives that explanation to him, because these are secret projects (duh).
So he'd go to jail over nothing.
He's been trying to tell others "where to look".
Duke
Senior Member.
Disciplinary action and/or criminal prosecution would be more likely not because of extraordinary claims whistleblowers make and may actually believe, but because the whistleblowers could reveal classified information/capabilities in support of or to validate (at least in their minds) their claims. If classified information a whistleblower interpreted to arrive at a questionable conclusion is real, the issue is revealing the information/capabilities used to reach that conclusion, not the conclusion itself.
A hypothetical example might be someone like Grusch having personally seen or even been told about data gathered from a classified source such a some new sensor system. Just describeing the nature of the data could "out" a new capability. Potential adversaries would be far more interested in learning a capability to obtain that data existed than they are our whistleblower's dubious conclusions.
Intel people make a living collecting bits and pieces of relevant information, both classified and unclassified, to put together a bigger picture "mosaic" of a potential adversary's capabilities or intentions. So in my hypothetical scenario, our whistleblower could either alert adversaries to existence of a capability, or corroborate information they already have.
A bit afield from whistleblowers, but back in the late 80s a US legislator gave an offhanded comment to a journalist after having received a classified briefing on a black aircraft program. While that comment would have meant nothing to most people, those of us in the program realized it alluded to a significant program milestone. That in turn provided adversaries with insight to overall program status/progress. It is my understanding that legislator received a quiet word through the SecAF's USAF Legisative Liason Office.
Man. I remember my father making fun of me for misspelling that like 9 years ago. That was BEFORE I got 2 degrees in hard science.
I will take the dunk.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Another example of this is the May Incident.
In WWII, Congressman Andrew J May accidentally disclosed some secrets to the Japanese Navy, just by careless talk. This accidental disclosure probably sank 10 submarines and killed 800 men.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_J._May#The_May_Incident
Similar threads
