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.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.
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 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.
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?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?
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.Showing a bunch of aircraft flashcards is not an example of analysis.
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. .
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.
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.So I think this raises a few questions of conflicting accounts.
That's because what he knows is "all top secret" and he can't talk about it. LMAO!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.
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.
Cannot agree more. We seem to be stuck in an endless loop. A new generation picks it up, forgets all about the older research, and there you go again. It is tiring.It's time to point to this again:
It's just the same old thing.
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.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).
|Thread starter||Related Articles||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Debunked: "Fake" live chat from the International Space Station (ISS) with Boise State||Flat Earth||10|
|Recent Activity now live updates, replaces chat||Site Feedback & News||0|
|Chat Room (Shoutbox)||Site Feedback & News||4|
|I'm going to to interview Lue Elizondo - What should I ask him?||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||19|
|Tom DeLonge's TTSA: Elizondo, Mellon, and Justice Depart||UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy||1|