My Chat With Luis Elizondo

He failed to address the substance of your explanations of the three videos. He basically just said "our analysis was different". Obviously he didn't have a good response. It would be interesting to hear you discuss these with some of the highly qualified government officials who think these videos demonstrate impressive technology.
 
Great interview!

My takeaway:
  • advanced military technology and UFOs are very similar, that's why you have to have secrecy -- the government doesn't cover up UFOs, they cover up what advanced technology they have and know about
  • the professionals don't single-source their data about an event
  • also, the professionals don't assume the most likely explanation is the correct one, off one piece of data
As amateurs, that's what we're doing, because we don't have access to the wider picture; and that's fine.
 
Jorrdan said:
He failed to address the substance of your explanations of the three videos. He basically just said "our analysis was different". Obviously he didn't have a good response. It would be interesting to hear you discuss these with some of the highly qualified government officials who think these videos demonstrate impressive technology.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the analysis itself, the methods to arrive at that analysis, and the data sources that go into that are all classified.

So anything Lou says about the analysis has to be taken with a grain of salt: he says what he has to say in order to not reveal what their internal analysis turned out to be. For that reason, I think it's going to be difficult to get anyone with that kind of access to talk about these things: if they know the classified stuff, they won't want to talk about it; and if they don't know the classified stuff, what good is it?
 
My takeaway:

  • He lied on official government documents (for reasons)
  • He released these videos to the public/TTSA for public analysis help.... BUT the whole last half of the video is him telling us that we cannot analyze the videos because we dont have all the other sources of data AND we aren't as smart as his "very qualified" team that already tried to analyze them.
  • He put uas, balloons,uav because he didnt want the public to think "UFOs" (as that is classified), but he goes all over national tv saying "it's UFOS" ???? huh?
  • He also implied that (paraphrase until transcript) "we dont have enough data to make a conclusion" [if they are balloons, or birds, or camera artifacts... was my impression of the context]... but he simultaneously has enough data to conclude aliens??? huh??
i did only make it to 51 mins then got bored with the song and dance. i only wanted to know if those were the 3 best ufo evidence videos he had, or if they were the ONLY ufo evidence videos he had. which i never got an answer.
 
deirdre said:
He released these videos to the public/TTSA for public analysis help.... BUT the whole last half of the video is him telling us that we cannot analyze the videos because we dont have all the other sources of data AND we aren't as smart as his "very qualified" team that already tried to analyze them.
Click to expand...
I think the finer point to be made here comes in at the end of the interview where he says that he "doesn't give a damn what people believe," he just wants them (us) to push the government for more info on this stuff - and that basically the videos were meant to get us introduced and the testimony from him and fravor are supposed to inspire us to make a movement to push the government to release more to us about these events. I heard a while back from a family member whom I talked to about these things that thats basically what it sounds like he wants and that we should be careful in considering this route as it may be an action intended to relax classification standards and unfortunately perhaps to the benefit of adversarial nations looking to gain whatever little tid-bits of information they can get about our systems and how they work.

He put uas, balloons,uav because he didnt want the public to think "UFOs" (as that is classified), but he goes all over national tv saying "it's UFOS" ???? huh?
Click to expand...
I think the one thing that potentially explains this is the timing. When was this form submitted and when did the interviews occur? Was the form submitted during the wikileaks scandal (he seems to imply yes it was) and were the videos talked about on the news a while after, say, perhaps after the government had time to review its security measure and make improvement and he felt more comfortable telling us more?
 
To be honest, I only watched part of the interview but I got a bit fed up with his song and dance when Mick confronted him with the explanations.

  1. He reminded me of a manager, who really does not understand details. As a technician, I have seen that face/response multiple times. You are trying to explain something and they nod their head but, deep down, you know that they have no idea what you are talking about and seem uninterested in learning. I have been in meetings where managers/supervisors simply ask irrelevant questions while you and the engineers try and resolve the technical problem.
  2. Showing a bunch of aircraft flashcards is not an example of analysis. I bet you can buy those exact same cards online somewhere. They used to give cards like this to the ground observer corps back in the 40s and 50s. These cards have no bearing in the videos since one object is a dot, another is a very small line, and the third is oversaturated by the thermal image. I would think that real analysts don't bother with such cards since they probably know what a MIG-21 looks like anyway. You don't see fighter pilots pulling up flashcards in the middle of a dog fight! You do give such cards to people who are not familiar with the subject. See #1 where I mention managers with little knowledge on the subject matter. All the cards demonstrate is he needed a crutch to help him learn the subject he was unfamiliar with.
  3. When it comes to analysis, he states there were other factors involved in the AATIPs analysis that are not available to the public that demonstrates that the analysis is wrong. I guess my first question to this is, "why did you release the videos in the first place if you are not going to release all of the information?" It seems that it is more a publicity stunt to get money for the TTSA. My second question is, "Did the TTSA do any "analysis" on the videos and why weren't these published?" Once again, if there is no attempt at analyzing these videos, then it was just a publicity stunt. Another thought on this, "What is the difference between data that is unavailable and no data at all?" I am very skeptical that any such analysis was ever done and if there really was any additional data. Remember, we are talking about an individual, who seems to be unfamiliar with the details and was little more than a manager (if he was even that) that quickly left the DOD in order to start a money-making scheme with a singer interested in the subject of UFOs.
 
Tim Printy said:
Showing a bunch of aircraft flashcards is not an example of analysis.
Click to expand...
It's an illustration that the military has people whose job it is to identify aircraft; he mentions that they have people who can look at footage and say, that's a MiG doing a 3G turn seen from a quarter below. It's like showing a multiplication table to illustrate that you have people who can do advanced maths because you can't really show the advanced maths.

The message associated with that was, when it's a military aircraft, we have people who will know that it is (and they won't be using a deck of cards to make that determination).

It also says that fighter pilots are trained to identify other fighters quickly and accurately as a matter of survival -- again, obviously not using a deck of cards, that's just a training tool you start with when you learn that skill.
 
External Quote:
22:11
You're never gonna touch the fact I never I never went to go speak to to anybody in the press. In fact, I didn't even want to. I would my hope was that when I went with Tom DeLonge, it was going to be somewhat subdued. He asked me said, Hey, do you mind? I'm doing a kind of an internet type announcement for this effort to bring awareness. Do you mind saying a few words? And I saw and I thought, Steve justice were there. And we had some other folks. I said, How? Okay, yeah, I'm, I'm happy to say a few things, how I had worked with me, obviously, on a tip. But I did not reach out to the New York Times, it was not me who discussed with Leslie Keane, initially, anything about the program, she had her own sources. And somehow she had that video, I did not provide it to her. And honestly, and I didn't ask where she got, because I frankly didn't want to know. You know, that really wasn't my business. And I don't want to, you know, overcomplicate things unnecessarily. The bottom line is she asked me to meet with her. I did, I answered her questions. Of course, there were questions I couldn't because I'm not going to talk about anything that's classified. There was my my impression she had spoken to other people, quite a few other people before she had spoken to me because she was asking me some very pointed, very relevant questions. And in fact, a few I was a bit uncomfortable to answer, because it showed that she had a lot more insight into the topic than then I would have expected her to have so she had a pretty decent understanding of, of, of, of that effort already. And I suspect that there were people that had spoken to her.
Interesting that the Dec 16 2017 NYT story said about GIMBAL:
Article:
A video shows an encounter between a Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet and an unknown object. It was released by the Defense Department's Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. By Courtesy of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE on Publish DateDecember 16, 2017. .


And about FLIR1/Nimitz
Article:
Officials with the program have also studied videos of encounters between unknown objects and American military aircraft — including one released in August of a whitish oval object, about the size of a commercial plane, chased by two Navy F/A-18F fighter jets from the aircraft carrier Nimitz off the coast of San Diego in 2004.


This seems to strongly suggest they got them directly from AATIP, in august 2017. That's the same time Elizondo was still there and the month of the email exchange behind the 1910 form.

Then we have this entirely different story from Phenomenon:
External Quote:

1:08:25
Narrator:
Elizondo his colleagues, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for intelligence, Christopher Mellon, managed to obtain the tapes from the Pentagon, and chose the New York Times to break the story.

Chris Mellon
I received the videos, the now-famous videos in the Pentagon parking lot. From a Defense Department official, I still have the originals in the packaging. This is a case where somebody bent the rules a little bit, and they did so for the larger good. And we're absolutely all better off because of it.
Mellon posted the following pictures on his website, then took them down. They were posted on multiple other sites. One is the original packaging:

img-1302_orig.jpg

img-1301_orig.jpg


Unclassified CDs dated 9/5 and the security bag labeled: "To: L. Elizondo, From: R. Essex, and then "Chris Mellon, 1600 9/7/17" - which all looks like a chain of custody.

So I think this raises a few questions of conflicting accounts.
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
So I think this raises a few questions of conflicting accounts.
Click to expand...
Even if Elizondo gave those disks to Mellon who then passed them on to Keane, Elizondo's account in your interview would be accurate. In fact, he'd especially not want to ask where she got it from if he already knew. So a possible sequence of events is Elizondo passing it on to Mellon passing it on to Keane, who reaches out to Elizondo, who then confirms that these videos are authentic. No conflicting accounts.
 
Maybe should have just nailed him down to Go Fast, spent the whole video on it if required talk him through the maths I get he's not an 'expert' and always just defers to them. However the figures are right there on the screen. It's not about seeing it just a camera view the actual figures are on it. Everything else can be waffled around and claimed to be opinions and extra data etc.

Either the 'finest engineers' are unable to do basic trig or the figures on screen are wrong and this is never mentioned whereas other figures on the HUD are claimed to be correct.

Maybe he wouldn't do the video if this was the format, or would refuse to bring the video up on his own computer etc I dunno.

I know you had a limited time and wanted to cover a lot of areas but 90% of what he says is waffle.
 
Can't forget that at least one video were publicly available on the web since 2009 on that German film student website, supposedly originally uploaded there (an apparent unsecure part of their server) by someone from the nimitz fleet who had the OG recording.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070209104330/http://www.vision-unlimited.de/extern/f4.mpg

I reached out to the owner of this website over facebook about a year or two ago and was told that they had no idea it was there and that it was / must have been uploaded to an unsecure section of their site via FTP. No idea how credible that really sounds, I've never really heard of such an insecure part of a site where just anyone could FTP in whatever file they wanted, seems like a gateway to let all sorts of illegal / unwanted stuff there so you'd think you'd think about that if it were your site.

I have always been a little upset that the video seems suspiciously titled (f4.mpg - referring to the original owner's knowledge that its a recording of an F4 Phantom?) and that it appeared on a student film website of all places. Was the video a fake made by these students? If so did they do it on their own? Or were they paid to produce some sort of propoganda and then told to just say it was uploaded to their site unknowingly? etc.
 
Last edited:
Jorrdan said:
He failed to address the substance of your explanations of the three videos. He basically just said "our analysis was different". Obviously he didn't have a good response. It would be interesting to hear you discuss these with some of the highly qualified government officials who think these videos demonstrate impressive technology.
Click to expand...
That's because what he knows is "all top secret" and he can't talk about it. LMAO!
 
Rocky said:
So why is the date written in a different color marker?
Click to expand...
Because "R. Essex" used the blue marker, and whoever wrote "Chris Mellon" wasn't the same person and didn't write it at the same time.
Why do you think it should be the same marker, under these circumstances?
 
It's not like they're doing quantum mechanics when reviewing a video. It's really not that complicated and a reasonably smart person who does there research can understand how you calculate speed from video and how the gimbal camera works.

West puts his analysis out there in response to specific claims people like Elizondo have made. They say the Go Fast video shows a rapidly moving object. West runs the numbers and shows it's not going very fast at all. It's just optical illusion because of parallax. West uses the numbers on the the FLIR video to do basic trig. Any high school trig student could use their SOHCAHTOA skills to figure out distance and from that speed. This isn't high level stuff. It's just basic math and it's either correct or not.

Elizondo could have said several things in response: The numbers on the FLIR screen aren't reliable. Mick made a sloppy math error. He misunderstood what the numbers on the video mean.

He could have given a concrete answer on that but he just said "we disagree".
Mendel said:
The problem is that the analysis itself, the methods to arrive at that analysis, and the data sources that go into that are all classified.
Click to expand...
 
My takeaway: if you have a good, non-mysterious explanation for any UAP encounter, it's only because you don't have access to other data (and, no, you can't have access to it, or know what kind of data it is, nor know whether it exists or not).
 
Sorry, I'm late to the discussion, and know that some of these points have been made above. Still, a few thoughts/questions:

I think it's tough to argue the specifics of the three videos because the response will always be: "well, we have more info that proves you wrong, but we can't share it." As a result, if there is a future discussion, I'd be curious to hear more about some of the topics below:

What is his theory/interpretation as a whole? I know the meta-bunk ethos is more about debunking specific incidents than evaluating broader theories, but I think it's worth a discussion. A lot of folks in the UFO community fall back on "we don't know/it's a mystery/we need more research" storyline. Elizondo/TTSA came back to that a lot on their History Channel show. But this "take-away" is a cop-out -- that's not how science works (scientists evaluate data AND offer conclusions), and that's not how the government/military works -- surely they have investigated many possible interpretations of these videos, and have ranked them in terms of likelihood. When the government calls these 'unidentified', that's government-speak for "we don't want to talk about it," and not "we have no idea -- it's probably aliens."

Mick, if your theory is correct (there are prosaic explanations), then that explains a lot of aspects of the data. That's why Fravor's military commanders seemed uninterested -- they also know there are prosaic explanations. And Mr. Elizondo supposedly left the government because they weren't taking the issue seriously -- well, perhaps they aren't taking it seriously because they know what's going on and don't see compelling evidence of anything unusual. And it explains why the scientific community isn't terribly interested -- the data just aren't compelling enough to entertain an extra-terrestrial explanation. At the end of the day, it's blurry dots on a screen and anecdotal/eyewitness testimony, and probably mis-identification of military technology, or drones, or balloons, or commercial aircraft, etc.

Mr. Elizondo and the (former) TTSA team keep positioning this as a military threat. That's a great storyline for advancing their agenda of generating interest in the topic. Well, if their theory is that this is an alien intelligence -- they could clearly conquer the earth with little trouble. Their technology must be so far ahead that we could offer little resistance. That war would last five minutes and we'd all be working in the mines (or whatever). The 'threat' storyline has been around for a long time -- aliens supposedly hacked nuclear missile sites back in the 70s, and Rendlesham Forest etc., but if they had that ability, why aren't they doing it all the time? What is their purpose? Mellon has said he thinks the UAPs may be involved in surveying. Surveying they can't do from space? With the technology for interstellar travel, and the supposed ability to defy physics as we understand it, what data are they collecting from surveying that they haven't been able to get over the last 20 years?

Along similar lines, The Nimitz incident was in 2004! What's happened since then? If it's aliens, they were pretty bold about making their presence known in 2004. Where are all the incidents since? (although they will probably argue that there are lots of subsequent incidents, but we just haven't heard about them)

Tom DeLonge is clearly on record (Joe Rogan podcast) as saying there are multiple species of aliens on earth, using us as proxies in an interstellar war. OK, well that's at least a theory of some kind. Why wasn't that on the History Channel show? If that's their interpretation of the data, let's hear more about that.

With the proliferation of cell phones, why hasn't there been a proliferation of high-quality videos showing UAPs? The same can be said for Bigfoot -- why was there one "great" video (the Patterson/Gimlin film) 50 years ago, but everything since has been blob-squatches, despite the proliferation of cell phones and trail cams? That's why the bigfoot community has increasingly gotten into "woo" explanations.

I believe Mr. Elizondo said in your interview that he "wasn't getting paid for this." But he presumably was getting paid by TTSA, and presumably he was paid by the History Channel. And presumably he's paid for appearances at UFO conferences. It seems to me that the TTSA team engineered the release of the videos, and then joined a for-profit company whose explicit goal was to generate public interest in the topic, and they profited via their TV show. That is now more clear than ever as the sole remaining purpose of TTSA is entertainment given their recent streamlining. What happened to their divisions devoted to materials, for example? They never found any -- at least not any ever published or submitted for peer review. Amount of actual compelling data uncovered by TTSA: zero. But mission accomplished for driving public interest in the topic.

I could be wrong, but weren't all three videos taken as part of training exercises? And does that mean the fighter jets aren't armed? If so, that would be a perfect time for the government to experiment with technologies for creating the impression that there are hundreds of radar targets. Or radar targets that supposedly drop from space to the ocean surface. Or some kind of air/sea ("trans-medium") balloons/drones. The UFO community often says the government/military would never test a technology on another group within the government/military without their knowledge, but I think history disproves that.

Also, was Mr. Elizondo also involved in Skinwalker Ranch? If not, what's his take on that? That was clearly part of the genesis of this program via the Harry Reid/Robert Bigelow combo. If someone says aliens from another planet are visiting us -- ok, maybe, at least that's conceivable is a science-driven view of the universe. But if you are talking about haunted ranches and immortal wolves etc. -- then you are going down a whole different rabbit hole. Again, what's their theory that would tie together all of their supposed data?
 
Rory said:
My takeaway: if you have a good, non-mysterious explanation for any UAP encounter, it's only because you don't have access to other data (and, no, you can't have access to it, or know what kind of data it is, nor know whether it exists or not).
Click to expand...
I've all but convinced myself that the "hidden evidence" isn't data so much as eyewitness accounts. It seems to me that Elizondo is trying to build up his pilots as experts (that's what his aircraft identification cards schtick is for), and I suspect that, intuitively, he credits their accounts more than the technical analyses of the data. This may be caused by him understanding these witnesses better than the technical analyses, and he defends this stance internally by explaining that we don't have access to all of the interviews that have been done (because they're classified), so we can't be as convinced that these witnesses accounts are correct as he is.

The problem with that is that eyewitnesses' accounts are horribly inaccurate in the context of criminal trials, and this inaccuracy can be exacerbated by mismanagement of the witnesses: by the information they're exposed to, by the way they're interviewed, etc. Juries love witnesses, but many procedural rules exist precisely because witnesses can easily (and inadvertantly!) manipulated into testifying to things that did not happen.

And that aligns with how conspiracy theories spread: people who don't have the education to understand a technical analysis instead believe other people (multipliers) whom they trust, and this trust stems from those multipliers affirming pre-existing beliefs or fears. If these beliefs or fears are irrational, cue the rabbit hole.

tl;dr (classified) witnesses are more convincing, but data (and analysis) is more correct
 
Mendel said:
I've all but convinced myself that the "hidden evidence" isn't data so much as eyewitness accounts. It seems to me that Elizondo is trying to build up his pilots as experts (that's what his aircraft identification cards schtick is for), and I suspect that, intuitively, he credits their accounts more than the technical analyses of the data. This may be caused by him understanding these witnesses better than the technical analyses, and he defends this stance internally by explaining that we don't have access to all of the interviews that have been done (because they're classified), so we can't be as convinced that these witnesses accounts are correct as he is.

The problem with that is that eyewitnesses' accounts are horribly inaccurate in the context of criminal trials, and this inaccuracy can be exacerbated by mismanagement of the witnesses: by the information they're exposed to, by the way they're interviewed, etc. Juries love witnesses, but many procedural rules exist precisely because witnesses can easily (and inadvertantly!) manipulated into testifying to things that did not happen.

And that aligns with how conspiracy theories spread: people who don't have the education to understand a technical analysis instead believe other people (multipliers) whom they trust, and this trust stems from those multipliers affirming pre-existing beliefs or fears. If these beliefs or fears are irrational, cue the rabbit hole.

tl;dr (classified) witnesses are more convincing, but data (and analysis) is more correct
Click to expand...
There's also a lot of other complexities in this, we know from his history that Elizondo has worked/managed human source and counterintelligence operations, this would leave him with a birth of exposure and more than likely at least a bit of bias towards favoring human sources over technical.

And in regard to the post above about "military threats", a military threat doesn't = any sort of UAP or a specific object (or that its extraterrestrial of origin), it just means that its existence or presence is a threat to the military in this context.

One thing that would be interesting to know is if AATIP and the current UAPTF follow DoD investigative guidelines and/or IC analytical guidelines. If they went by IC analytical guidelines the likely hood of them declaring things as "unidentified" would be amplified all the more. To declare it unidentified, they would need sourcing on *what the specific object is*, not just that it is a specific sort of object. Beyond that, they would need not only a high degree of confidence but a rating above the threshold of likely in regards to the specific identification itself, for it to be considered identified.

It has also been brought up here that we should possibly not trust the claim that the US would test equipment on its own people unknowingly. While there is a good basis behind this reasoning, if we look in the past where incidents of this have happened, they do not set up decades worth of multi-service task forces and pour in tens of millions of dollars or more just into, well, investigating and collecting information on the matter all behind closed doors anyways. The same people that would have knowledge of said tests would be the same people approving these programs. And if we do look in the rare cases where there has been investigative bodies presented in matters like that, they are usually public facing. Sometimes they have been misleading, other times they've existed to actually showcase what said service or the Department of Defense has overall.
 
The Pentagon tried disavowing Elizondo today once again.
Today, when asked if Elizondo ran AATIP, a pentagon spokesperson said, "Luis Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) while he was assigned to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security

Source: https://twitter.com/GadiNBC/status/1386870260716883969
Click to expand...


Sen. Harry Reid stepped in and stated the contrary:
UPDATE: Former Senator Harry Reid has sent us a letter confirming
@LueElizondo's role at #AATIP. "As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo's involvement and leadership role in this program." #uapdisclosure

Source: https://twitter.com/GadiNBC/status/1386872125835812864?s=20
Click to expand...


This is really absurd.
 
WhistlingWinds said:
There's also a lot of other complexities in this, we know from his history that Elizondo has worked/managed human source and counterintelligence operations, this would leave him with a birth of exposure and more than likely at least a bit of bias towards favoring human sources over technical.

And in regard to the post above about "military threats", a military threat doesn't = any sort of UAP or a specific object (or that its extraterrestrial of origin), it just means that its existence or presence is a threat to the military in this context.

One thing that would be interesting to know is if AATIP and the current UAPTF follow DoD investigative guidelines and/or IC analytical guidelines. If they went by IC analytical guidelines the likely hood of them declaring things as "unidentified" would be amplified all the more. To declare it unidentified, they would need sourcing on *what the specific object is*, not just that it is a specific sort of object. Beyond that, they would need not only a high degree of confidence but a rating above the threshold of likely in regards to the specific identification itself, for it to be considered identified.

It has also been brought up here that we should possibly not trust the claim that the US would test equipment on its own people unknowingly. While there is a good basis behind this reasoning, if we look in the past where incidents of this have happened, they do not set up decades worth of multi-service task forces and pour in tens of millions of dollars or more just into, well, investigating and collecting information on the matter all behind closed doors anyways. The same people that would have knowledge of said tests would be the same people approving these programs. And if we do look in the rare cases where there has been investigative bodies presented in matters like that, they are usually public facing. Sometimes they have been misleading, other times they've existed to actually showcase what said service or the Department of Defense has overall.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
gtoffo said:
So at this point the only explanation is an active disinformation campaign?
Click to expand...
Why lay all of your cards on the table when you don't have to? What benefit would there be in that. You want to open a channel of communication but not reveal more than you have to. Keep the doubt alive --why reveal tipping point evidence?

1. So, if these objects are some earthly technology from a US adversary and that is known --then what advantage would there be in discussing it with the public? Even if it was Chinese technology several generations ahead, it wouldn't make sense to demonstrate weakness and risk securoty breaches by having the conversation with the public. Correct?

2. So if these objects are from the US arsenal and are several generations ahead of other countries' weapons, then the same question applies --what advantage would there be in discussing it with the public? Why blow the cover on first-strike weapons we would have worked SO hard to develop in secret for 70+ years... where does Sun Tzu say such a thing would be wise? There = 0 advantage or worse.

3. So what if these objects are known to not be an Earthly technology and far beyond our capabilities, and as Ratcliffe has said, they are seen all over the world, and their actions directly impact national security, and they are becoming a problem.. THEN it would make sense to open a channel of gradual revelation to the public --not knowing what might be coming next. It is the only thing that adds up.
 
Todd Feinman said:
1. So, if these objects are some earthly technology from a US adversary and that is known --then what advantage would there be in discussing it with the public? Even if it was Chinese technology several generations ahead, it wouldn't make sense to demonstrate weakness and risk securoty breaches by having the conversation with the public. Correct?
Click to expand...
You are choosing your assumptions to fit your conclusion.
The problem with UAP is precisely that they are unidentified. All your alternatives presume that the Pentagon knows what they are, but there must be some phenomena where they don't. Now, it's probably pretty important for strategists to know if a UAP demonstrates some superior technology or if it has a simpler explanation. And if they can't figure it out for themselves, it makes sense to ask the public. Even if they could figure it out, it may make sense to pretend they couldn't and make adversaries underestimate their intelligence capabilities.

There are many other more sensible scenarios than "a US agency has proof of aliens, but it never leaked".
 
Mendel said:
You are choosing your assumptions to fit your conclusion.
The problem with UAP is precisely that they are unidentified. All your alternatives presume that the Pentagon knows what they are, but there must be some phenomena where they don't. Now, it's probably pretty important for strategists to know if a UAP demonstrates some superior technology or if it has a simpler explanation. And if they can't figure it out for themselves, it makes sense to ask the public. Even if they could figure it out, it may make sense to pretend they couldn't and make adversaries underestimate their intelligence capabilities.

There are many other more sensible scenarios than "a US agency has proof of aliens, but it never leaked".
Click to expand...
They aren't asking the pubic really.. They are always having to stop themselves from revealing classified information, and much of the material isn't out there to educate the public --aside from what Elizondo says he is doing.. So they seem to be reluctantly discussing it and officials are very circumspect when answering questions... It may be that there is a mundane explanation for it --I'm not saying that isn't possible, but by the same token, the possibility that there is some other explanation even something that might seem far out of one's paradigm also can't be ruled out. With a backdrop of officials and witnesses making alien noises, and alluding to a rotten secret in the back of the refrigerator that has been rotting for years... And the same kind of stuff happening in the '40s and '50s...It is kind of suggestive.
 
Todd Feinman said:
They aren't asking the pubic really.. They are always having to stop themselves from revealing classified information, and much of the material isn't out there to educate the public --aside from what Elizondo says he is doing.. So they seem to be reluctantly discussing it and officials are very circumspect when answering questions... It may be that there is a mundane explanation for it --I'm not saying that isn't possible, but by the same token, the possibility that there is some other explanation even something that might seem far out of one's paradigm also can't be ruled out. With a backdrop of officials and witnesses making alien noises, and alluding to a rotten secret in the back of the refrigerator that has been rotting for years... And the same kind of stuff happening in the '40s and '50s...It is kind of suggestive.
Click to expand...
Would you not argue that the thing it's suggestive of is the repeated and predictable absence of anything behind closed doors? It seems to me like you have to take a greater stretch into the realm of wishful thinking to believe the contrary. This type of noise has been made by ex-government-this and former-employee-of-that for many, many years. I don't know why any of this would be different.

Also, who precisely are you saying is in charge of this hypothetical "slowly opening channel" of information to the public? The actors who have made the most noise and disseminated the most information about leaked videos / government programs are all current employees of privately owned companies and so on. Luis Elizondo, former Sen. Reid, Jeremy Corbell and company are the agents of said channel? I don't think so. If it were such an advanced issue of national security, would it not be more reasonable to assume that they'd reach out to some private group of researchers out of a renowned university or try something covert like the Manhattan Project, which combined many great scientific minds under short-term government secrecy? I do not see our government taking such an issue and believing anything greatly productive would come out of the slow, controlled spread of UFO information to the US public - especially not if this is a worsening national security threat.

But the problem w/this type of discourse is that it is primarily based off of the leveling of assumptions about what large government agencies would or would not do given extremely complicated and potentially "unearthly" threats. I don't think you or anyone makes a profound case for anything by making assumptions based off of hand-selected assumptions.

Tl;dr as someone else in this forum said, UFOs and well funded (sometimes, government backed) agencies have been around for a very long time, and the people involved grow old and die before anything ever happens. The same can probably be said for Elizondo and his pack of Project Stargate hopefuls pretending to have top secret alien metals on the History Channel.
 
Elizondo, Reid and others have said there is a lot more. You can't see it of course --instead you get the worst quality stuff --as Elizondo has basically said --and as seen with the extra evidence presented to Congress. All of of the honchos from Ratcliffe to Woolsey are giving the alien wink and nod. No one I know of with security clearances seems to be actively disputing the implied nature of the devices. They aren't asking the public for help, really. They are providing the least informative material --on purpose. In '52 after UFOs flew back and forth over the Capitol -they were also forced into a press conference about UFOs --they didn't want to discuss it then and Hillenkoetter and Keyhoe felt that the public should have been told --but then the "official secrecy" and "ridicule". So I think the same thing is happening again now --and this is the secret that has been rotting in the frig for so long --the phenomenon is intensifying again and a number of pilots and others are breaking silence and perhaps leaking classified information --so they are trying to get ahead of the situation. If the Pentagon didn't want Elizondo and others to discuss this stuff they wouldn't be supportive and they would make him cut it out.

It's more than just speculation about what the government would do with disclosure. If you listen to the witnesses and Elizondo and Reid, and Podesta, and Ratcliffe too (he says all countries are dealing with it), they are strongly implying that it is not a mundane phenomenon --so there is grounds for speculation. Elizondo started off by saying "we may note be alone" to now referring to the secret rotting in the back of the frig for so many years that future generations will have to deal with... Weird, eh? Seems intentional.

BTW, one can find Tic Tac like objects, Go Fast types of objects and the rest --in far more interesting situations, right here:
https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...fo-encounters-newspaper-articles.65811/page-3
Some even almost land --or do and then take back off again.

"...Perhaps Hillenkoetter's best-known statement on the subject was in 1960 in a letter to Congress, as reported in The New York Times: "Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense."[18]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_H._Hillenkoetter#Board_member_of_NICAP
 
Last edited:
Todd Feinman said:
Elizondo, Reid and others have said there is a lot more. You can't see it of course --instead you get the worst quality stuf
Click to expand...
How convenient. That's like trying to prove the devil exists by presenting no evidence and claiming, "that's because i dont want to show you the real evidence. but send me money anyway".
 
deirdre said:
How convenient. That's like trying to prove the devil exists by presenting no evidence and claiming, "that's because i dont want to show you the real evidence. but send me money anyway".
Click to expand...
That is an unfair and inaccurate statement.

Elizondo and Reid are pushing for the government to release that information for more study. They are not asking for money (as far as I know). That's exactly what we would like to have too.

It is a fact that the government has more data that they are not releasing. It is not Elizondo's or Reid's fault if it isn't.
 
gtoffo said:
Elizondo and Reid are pushing for the government to release that information for more study
Click to expand...
again, how convenient.
gtoffo said:
They are not asking for money (as far as I know)
Click to expand...
i wasnt really talking about Reid as this thread is about Elizondo. Reid is a politician, asking for money is what they do.

How has Elizondo paid his bills since quitting? Did he not make money (maybe he didnt) from TTSA? from his little History channel show? from his talks? My analogy is fine.
 
deirdre said:
again, how convenient.

i wasnt really talking about Reid as this thread is about Elizondo. Reid is a politician, asking for money is what they do.

How has Elizondo paid his bills since quitting? Did he not make money (maybe he didnt) from TTSA? from his little History channel show? from his talks? My analogy is fine.
Click to expand...
Reid is retired.

Elizondo HAD a job and left it in protest to push for disclosure.
For all we know he might be retired after his long military career and living off his pension. You have no proof his motivation is profit.
So I think your analogy is unfair unless you do find proof.

In any case. Those are just ad hominem attacks which are pretty irrelevant. Who cares :-D Let's try to focus on the verifiable facts.
 
I loved watching your interview with Lue Elizondo, Mick. Is there a plan for you to have another interview with him in June after the big report comes out? I'm sure everyone will be going bonkers regardless of what is in the report. It's great that debunkers are in there with the grilling apparatus; just the right folks for the job.
 
Todd Feinman said:
I loved watching your interview with Lue Elizondo, Mick. Is there a plan for you to have another interview with him in June after the big report comes out? I'm sure everyone will be going bonkers regardless of what is in the report. It's great that debunkers are in there with the grilling apparatus; just the right folks for the job.
Click to expand...
No, after the first one he said he's too busy, and we've not communicated since.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MonkeeSage
Steven Greenstreet's Report on "The Pentagon Ghostbusters"
Replies
11
Views
579
Tezcatlipoca
T
Mick West
Wright Patterson Drone Documents and Video [Lots of Planes]
Replies
36
Views
2K
MonkeeSage
MonkeeSage
Nemon
Jake Barber tells Ross Coulthart about non-human technology - The "Egg"
13 14 15
Replies
590
Views
49K
Tezcatlipoca
T
I
Luis Elizondo on The Joe Rogan Experience#2194
2
Replies
61
Views
11K
Mick West
Mick West
Mick West
Skywatcher Part II: "Mapping The Unknown"
4 5 6
Replies
205
Views
14K
JMartJr
JMartJr

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top