My Chat With Luis Elizondo

[Mendel]

I look forward to seeing all the recorded data from these systems, gathered and retained according to AARO's instructions, in every future UAP/UFO encounter.

AARO cannot declassify the data. But they're going to be able to explain more sightings.

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

I look forward to seeing all the recorded data from these systems, gathered and retained according to AARO's instructions, in every future UAP/UFO encounter.

Or am I being overoptimistic? In a period of heightened tensions with Russia and China, would the US DoD want to publish details of their systems' capabilities and failings? I know I wouldn't.

True! But we just got HD footage of the China/Russia encounter west of Alaska. We got last year, I believe, HD footage of the Russian fighters buzzing US UAVs up close and personal.

If we had footage like that which is simple video/high-res photography with no technical collateral overlaid, why not share that of UFOs?

What's the harm in the equivalent being made public now, if there's no aliens and all the UFOs have vanilla answers? Our human adversaries already know we saw 'them' up close and personal, if it's like secret Chinese or Russian or North Korean or Iranian gear.

 

[Eburacum]

If we had footage like that which is simple video/high-res photography with no technical collateral overlaid, why not share that of UFOs?

Probably because there isn't any yet. If they get some good images in the future, perhaps we'll get to see them.

Until then we need to be content with the Batman Balloon.

 

[NorCal Dave]

If we had footage like that which is simple video/high-res photography with no technical collateral overlaid, why not share that of UFOs?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but that pre-supposes there ARE high-res videos/photos of UFOs that are not identifiable, despite being in high res. Correct?

That is, a video or photo that clearly shows the object is NOT any known thing. Which instances of this are you referring to?

EDIT: I didn't realize which thread this was, my bad. This seems off topic so I'm copying the post to this thread where it's a bit more on topic. If you can't find them you can't study them:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/can-ufo-uaps-be-studied-scientifically.13556/page-6#post-319640

 

[AllTheQuestionsToday]

That is, a video or photo that clearly shows the object is NOT any known thing. Which instances of this are you referring to?

I'm thinking the Lake Huron and Alaska/Yukon shootdowns.

Whatever they were, if they were human adversarial tech, there is no harm in putting out a photo. They (lets say Russia or China) already know we saw them, because we shot both down and recovered them. But the Alaskan and Huron events are apparently still both super hush-hush.

We were told they were balloons ala the one off the coast of Maryland in the Atlantic. We got an almost goofy amount of HD footage, images and then more of the collection efforts at sea. But the Huron and Alaskan 'balloons' no one wants to say boo about?

 

[Mendel]

They (lets say Russia or China) already know we saw them, because we shot both down and recovered them.

The US recovered them? Do you have a source for that?

 

[Resistor]

Do they explain exactly why, in each case, or just make a list? A kind of Gish Gallop of sensors.

Do they explain exactly why, in each case, or just make a list? A kind of Gish Gallop of sensors.

I have supported mission assurance of some of these weapon systems and sensor platforms that are used operationally to support USNORTHCOM/NORAD Homeland Defense Missions. I would need an understanding of the geographic area where these UAP where encountered to provide context to what Gish Gallop of fixed and mobile sensors may/could be used to assist with the assessment of the three released videos and any other realtime encounters of UAP's. Understanding Airspace Control, ADIZ and the authorized use of ISR platforms within CONUS will help provide context. Sources: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/us_restrictions/airspace/
https://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/Pres...-russian-and-prc-aircraft-operating-in-the-a/ https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2939&context=ils https://info.publicintelligence.net/USAF-DomesticImagery.pdf

 

[Mendel]

I would need an understanding of the geographic area where these UAP where encountered to provide context to what Gish Gallop of fixed and mobile sensors may/could be used to assist with the assessment of the three released videos and any other realtime encounters of UAP's.

It wouldn't be a gish gallop (see wikipedia) if your list was relevant and to the point.

 

[elvenwear]

(3) File names such as GIMBAL and FLIR suggest the DoD had already identified the commonly known phenomena shown in some of the footage while obviously aware of its own classified capabilities featured in other footage.

This was the first thing that struck me on watching the videos. An argument could be made that they had not identified that the parallax effect in the go fast video, but it is harder to say this about the gimbal video. Since the effect of gimbal rotation would be well understood by the analysts, it strongly suggests the name was applied after a successful identification. Once this conclusion is drawn, it makes it more plausible that go fast had also been identified (although still it may not have been).

When Mick had asked Elizondo about the origin of the filenames and he claimed not to know, this struck me as very odd. If the filenames were created after successful analysis and he was a key figure in the team that analysed these videos, it's difficult to understand why he wouldn't know.

Even if all the above speculation was false, it would still be unusual for him not to know. The anthropologists who excavated Lucy could all tell you where her name came from. The police who tracked Richard Kuklinski could all tell you how he came to be known as the iceman. These were both teams working together on a puzzle and in their discussions about the puzzle, the name naturally evolved. Elizondo claims to have been in a team working on a puzzle and yet he claims not to know.

Coupled with his evasive answers, his credibility and integrity are questionable.

In Mick's analysis in the youtube video 'Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis' there are discrepancies between the actual gimbal rotation observed in the gimbal video and the predicted rotation from Mick's model. These discrepancies appear to reveal the exact thresholds where movement in the gimbal system is triggered. I'm not sure if this information would have been useful to an enemy of the US at the time these systems were actively deployed, but it's easy to see why videos like this are classified to begin with. Who knows what information can be gleaned from them?

 

[Mick West]

he was a key figure in the team that analysed these videos

I don't think there's anything to suggest that he was ever involved in video analysis.

Or maybe he was just part of a really bad team. In his book he says they took "several years" to figure out GoFast might be parallax.

 

[elvenwear]

I don't think there's anything to suggest that he was ever involved in video analysis.

Or maybe he was just part of a really bad team. In his book he says they took "several years" to figure out GoFast might be parallax.

I watched that video within a week of it's release and my recollection now is that at the time I'd thought he was involved in the analysis.

Never trust an eyewitness, I suppose.

 

[jarlrmai]

Is it not known that Travis Taylor was the analysis guy? I guess who really knows what if anything was actually done.

 

[Domzh]

Or maybe he was just part of a really bad team. In his book he says they took "several years" to figure out GoFast might be parallax.

wait, he admitted in the book that gofast was likely parallax?

if true this would send the believer scene in a mental meltdown, after dismissing this explanation for years and calling people like you disinfo agents and morons because elite observers wouldnt make such a mistake.

 

[JMartJr]

wait, he admitted in the book that gofast was likely parallax?

if true this would send the believer scene in a mental meltdown, after dismissing this explanation for years and calling people like you disinfo agents and morons because elite observers wouldn't make such a mistake.

Anyone have the book and willing to go to the trouble, I'd enjoy having a shot of that quote!

 

[Mick West]

wait, he admitted in the book that gofast was likely parallax?

if true this would send the believer scene in a mental meltdown, after dismissing this explanation for years and calling people like you disinfo agents and morons because elite observers wouldnt make such a mistake.

Not exactly, he says of GoFast:

The object moves from the top right to the lower left of the screen. There's no plume of exhaust, no wings, no propellers. Just a speedy little egg out for a jaunt above the ocean. At the time, no one in DoD or the IC could explain it. After several years of analysis, however, later researchers would claim that the object was going much slower than previously thought. This effect is called a parallax. I still don't agree with this assessment, since the pilots who witnessed the object flying marveled at its speed.

Elizondo, Luis. Imminent: Inside the Pentagon's Hunt for UFOs: the Former Head of the Program Responsible for Investigating UAPs Reveals Profound Secrets (p. 146). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

"Years of analysis" is nonsense, we were saying this within hours of the video being released.

And the pilots "marveling at its speed" is a very weak rebuttal.

 

[Ravi]

This effect is called a parallax.

This is what Luis wrote. What is "a parallax"? Does he understand the concept of parallax I wonder.. This would explain a lot.

 

[Mick West]

This effect is called a parallax.

This is what Luis wrote. What is "a parallax"? Does he understand the concept of parallax I wonder.. This would explain a lot.

That might just have been editing; from "this effect is called a parallax effect", the editor might have thought the last word was redundant.

Of course, he should have caught it. I saw it when making my video, but I thought it was too nit-picky to include.

 

[Ravi]

That might just have been editing; from "this effect is called a parallax effect", the editor might have thought the last word was redundant.

Of course, he should have caught it. I saw it when making my video, but I thought it was too nit-picky to include.

You're right, not an extremely important error.