Pentagon June 2021 Report on 120+ UAP Incidents

LilWabbit

Active Member
The New York Times reported on 3 June 2021 that the upcoming Pentagon report (expected to be released to Congress on 25 June 2021) "finds no evidence U.F.O.s were alien spacecraft", "according to senior administration officials briefed on the findings of a highly anticipated government report."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/03/us/politics/ufos-sighting-alien-spacecraft-pentagon.html

For me the following passages jumped out as I was poring over the article:

"The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret."

If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?). In other words, those few incidents are technically no longer "unidentified". However, by officially naming those incidents and pronouncing them as "identified" the Pentagon would effectively be revealing to the public and the enemies which of these 120+ incidents in fact feature classified U.S. capabilities. Therefore, it stands to reason that these incidents would remain strictly anonymous and unspecified in the report. It also means the second sentence of the quoted passage contradicts the preceding sentence.

"The report concedes that much about the observed phenomena remains difficult to explain, including their acceleration, as well as ability to change direction and submerge. One possible explanation — that the phenomena could be weather balloons or other research balloons — does not hold up in all cases, the officials said, because of changes in wind speed at the times of some of the interactions."

The phraseology "does not hold up in all cases" would suggest that the weather and research balloon hypothesis holds up in many or even most cases. Yet some cases continue to puzzle the investigators.

"Many of the more than 120 incidents examined in the report are from Navy personnel, officials said. The report also examined incidents involving foreign militaries over the last two decades. Intelligence officials believe at least some of the aerial phenomena could have been experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China."

If "some of the aerial phenomena" are believed to be experimental Chinese or Russian technology, then it stands to reason that the rival nation technology hypothesis also holds water in some cases.

In other words, the Pentagon report effectively demystifies a major bulk of the 120+ incidents observed by Navy personnel over the years, and in fact tacitly admits that a small minority of them (representing US technology) are effectively solved (i.e. they are non-UAP).
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
I would like to know who is in the UAPTF. And also what consultants they use


Elizondo was asked if he worked/consulted for the UAPTF and he said he was not at liberty to discuss his involvement with the UAPTF. Which is suspiciously like, yes, yes I do. Otherwise he would have just said no.

Also, are the usual suspects -> Puthoff and Eric Davis still being consulted by the UAPTF?
 
Last edited:

folly4

Member
The phraseology "does not hold up in all cases" would suggest that the weather and research balloon hypothesis holds up in many or even most cases.

I'd say it implies "some" cases. I'm not sure it necessarily denotes "many" or "most."

Technically, it could mean "all except one."

If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?).

Yes.

Although there is one other line in the article that apparently contradicts this:

Many of the more than 120 incidents examined in the report are from Navy personnel, officials said. The report also examined incidents involving foreign militaries over the last two decades. Intelligence officials believe at least some of the aerial phenomena could be experimental technology from a rival power, most likely Russia or China.

One senior official briefed on the intelligence said without hesitation that U.S. officials knew it was not American technology. He said there was worry among intelligence and military officials that China or Russia could be experimenting with hypersonic technology.

He and other officials spoke on grounds of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the classified findings in the report.

Stripped of the context, it's hard to know exactly what that "one senior official" referring to.

Overall, the language in the article seems leave plenty of room for a range of possibilities. (Maybe on purpose?)

Ultimately, I don't think it says anything terribly definitive, and it's possible to read too much into it.
 

LarryLobster

New Member
I would like to know who is in the UAPTF. And also what consultants they use


Elizondo was asked if he worked/consulted for the UAPTF and he said he was not at liberty to discuss his involvement with the UAPTF. Which is suspiciously like, yes, yes I do. Otherwise he would have just said no.

Also, are the usual suspects -> Puthoff and Eric Davis still being consulted by the UAPTF?

It is increasingly difficult to trust Elizondo. The most I can see them doing is asking him for his advice on something or other; I have no idea why he - an admitted civilian with, in his own words, no access to anything classified - would be doing anything for the UAPTF.


In his chat with Mick West, Lue Elizondo makes it clear that he does not have access to anything classified and is no longer a public servant (vid below).


 
Last edited:

Buckaroo

Member
The second half of this article is pure mystery-mongering, repackaging the familiar old cases and presenting them as face-value fact. E.g.:

"In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast."

Did they now? Actual "strange objects," "like a spinning top moving against the wind"and not a misinterpretation of mundane phenomena? How do we know? (Checks the linked reference, finds a regurgitation of the same claim with no corroborating evidence.) Ah! We don't, yet the NYT presents it as a fact. Or how about this one:

"In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects, and an official mishap report was filed."

Really? An actual "near collision" with an actual physical flying object that the pilot couldn't identify? Are you sure that's REALLY how it happened?

This is shockingly bad journalism. The NYT has a lot to answer for in propagating this hysteria.
 
Anne Dietrich ( Fravors Wingman ) seems to be unhappy with the current situation:

In reply to a discussion about how this topic should be "moved forward" tweeted:
"An exposé on the UFO-industrial complex. What is this subculture/economy/market worth? Who feeds off the fear/anxiety/obsession? How much do they make? How many books, TV shows, podcasts *are* there?!"
Source: https://twitter.com/DietrichVFA41/status/1401033216153341958?s=20


She tweeted further along the thread: "People should be turning my time/voice/image into a commodity? I am not a freak show to boost your ratings or profit."
Source: https://twitter.com/DietrichVFA41/status/1401042145943904258?s=20



She's not wrong.

Hope it's OK to post this on this thread, it seems relevant and didn't seem appropriate anywhere else, and is an interesting position I feel.
( I might add she seemed more than keen on embracing "ufotwitter" a couple of weeks ago, as has been noted on this forum on other threads I believe ).
 
Last edited:

jackfrostvc

Active Member
@Jayne Miller


As you may have seen on twitter, both Dave Beaty and I have been paving the grounds for Alex to do an AMA and hopefully release her notes and diagrams she did at the time.
Dave has setup a facebook page for the AMA and I have been talking with Alex to set a time to do it.
She said that once she finishes unpacking she will get onto it

So we will see if it happens
 
The second half of this article is pure mystery-mongering, repackaging the familiar old cases and presenting them as face-value fact. E.g.:

"In one encounter, strange objects — one of them like a spinning top moving against the wind — appeared almost daily from the summer of 2014 to March 2015, high in the skies over the East Coast."

Did they now? Actual "strange objects," "like a spinning top moving against the wind"and not a misinterpretation of mundane phenomena? How do we know? (Checks the linked reference, finds a regurgitation of the same claim with no corroborating evidence.) Ah! We don't, yet the NYT presents it as a fact. Or how about this one:

"In late 2014, a Super Hornet pilot had a near collision with one of the objects, and an official mishap report was filed."

Really? An actual "near collision" with an actual physical flying object that the pilot couldn't identify? Are you sure that's REALLY how it happened?

This is shockingly bad journalism. The NYT has a lot to answer for in propagating this hysteria.

Changed their headline to a more click attracting one too. ( Right headline amended to left ).
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2021-06-04 at 10.36.40.png
    Screenshot 2021-06-04 at 10.36.40.png
    378.2 KB · Views: 101

Domzh

Active Member
Do you guys also feel "alone" when it comes to these sort of things and critical thinking in general?

How can so many people really not recognize what "the vast majority of" means?

How can so many people, even accomplished military professionals, not understand how you can't just mush different observations together when it's not sure they are linked to the same cause?

How can so many educated people fall victim to "confirmation bias", "authority bias" and especially the "texan sharpshooter fallacy" and fully lock up when you explain it to them?

That's why I love to code, there's no bias. "1 + 1 equals 2" no matter what your believe system looks like and no matter how many "Experts" have an opinion about it.
 
Last edited:

LilWabbit

Active Member
How can so many people, even accomplished military professionals, not understand how you can't just mush different observations together when it's not sure they are linked to the same cause?

"Accomplished military professionals" on image and video analysis were likely not approached nor consulted by the AATIP/UAPTF. AATIP/UAPTF was founded and led by ideologues. Ideologues, even when genuinely attempting critical analysis, are more bent on the wonder of the "objects" than the fallibility of the "subjects", and hence disinclined to even entertain the latter hypothesis.

The DoD 'proper' (yup, excluding the AATIP/UAPTF) is not in the business of unnecessarily upsetting these ideologues or the believing public by engaging in disproving their findings. Let alone by revealing classified capabilities with respect to some of the UAP footage. It's in the business of national security. It would also hurt the DoD's 'one team' reputation to publicly discount the work of its own employees, albeit fringe ones. The mistrust between the DoD proper and the AATIP/UAPTF seems evident, and is likely the main reason for the leaks in the first place. Hence this circus that has ensued.

Whilst far from infallible and omnipotent, the US military / DoD is the world's largest employer hiring some of the very best experts in their respective fields. This is the one point of agreement between the UFO faithfuls and the skeptics. Many believers, however, assume the DoD is a simple monolith whose amazing experts are fully consulted, or fully at the disposal, of the tiny and politically motivated fringe entity that is the UAPTF. Hence, whatever the UAPTF concludes, is mistakenly regarded as the findings of the best of the best.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm sorry I'm a bit late to the party.
For me the following passages jumped out as I was poring over the article:

"The report determines that a vast majority of more than 120 incidents over the past two decades did not originate from any American military or other advanced U.S. government technology, the officials said. That determination would appear to eliminate the possibility that Navy pilots who reported seeing unexplained aircraft might have encountered programs the government meant to keep secret."

If indeed the report determines that "a vast majority" of the 120+ UAP incidents witnessed by military (mostly Navy) personnel did not originate from advanced US government technology, then it is in fact tacitly acknowledging that at least some of them did ("a small minority"?). In other words, those few incidents are technically no longer "unidentified". However, by officially naming those incidents and pronouncing them as "identified" the Pentagon would effectively be revealing to the public and the enemies which of these 120+ incidents in fact feature classified U.S. capabilities. Therefore, it stands to reason that these incidents would remain strictly anonymous and unspecified in the report. It also means the second sentence of the quoted passage contradicts the preceding sentence.
When you have these options:
1) UAP identified
a) originating from US gov't tech
b) not originating from US gov't tech
2) UAP not identified

then seeing a "vast majority" reported in group 1a) does not allow you to conclude that there are actually cases in group 1a), because you've not exhausted all the options.

So there is no "tacit acknowledgment" here.

I would also be wary of reading too much into "contradictions" in press reporting or press releases that may misrepresent or simplify what the report actually says.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
then seeing a "vast majority" reported in group 1a) does not allow you to conclude that there are actually cases in group 1a), because you've not exhausted all the options.
It allows you to conclude that there might be some that are explained by US tech test. Not that the (unclassified) report would actually tell you if they were.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
that should obviously read "reported in group 1b)"


yes, but I would not describe that as "acknowledgment"

we'll find out more when the report comes out

To quibble some more. Your fault, you started it. :D

If the working assumption is that the DoD is fully aware of all secret US tech, as well as all their testing locations and times, then for the very same DoD to "determine" in its report that "a vast majority" of the UAP incidents do not feature secret US technologies somewhat safely translates to a "tacit acknowledgment" that at least 1 incident does.

If, however, the DoD, or at least those within the DoD (say, the UAPTF) responsible for the report, are not fully in the know of all secret US capabilities and tech programs (a very reasonable assumption if indeed the report is not properly reviewed within the DoD beyond the UAPTF), then the same wording would merely imply that at least 1 incident 'might' be secret US tech.

I based my initial comment on the first assumption.

In either case, this perhaps gratuitous (whilst personally entertaining) quibbling is premised on the reporter being correct in attributing the expression "a vast majority" to the actual report.

We are in full agreement on the futility of reading too much into what a reporter writes. Especially when it is based on anonymous comments by 'senior officials' on a report yet to be officially released, while making logically unwarranted conclusions even based on these anecdotes.

P.S. Luis Elizondo is expecting a "watered down" report. This could indicate a broader DoD review of the UAPTF findings before the report release, and the consequent dialling down of some of the wilder hypotheses advanced by some current or former UAPTF staff. However, the DoD explicitly mentioning 'the optical illusion hypothesis' in reference to videos such as the GIMBAL and FLIR, or explicitly dismissing 'the physics-defying-movement hypothesis' as far-fetched, is highly unlikely. This is the case for several reasons, one of them being to avert the public impression of internal squabbling. Another is the awareness that Pentagon gains nothing at this juncture by offending the believers, whether amongst political influencers or in the general public. Keeping the alien-discussion alive and kicking may even serve classified national security programs and operations as a distraction / smokescreen, although it may have been an unintended distraction at first (owing to leaks).
 
Last edited:

neo_seoul

New Member
My main disappointment is that NYT and most other news outlets are doing a terrible job and often borderline fabricating stuff. This way of doing "reporting" doesn't help anyone unfortunately.
 

LilWabbit

Active Member
My main disappointment is that NYT and most other news outlets are doing a terrible job and often borderline fabricating stuff. This way of doing "reporting" doesn't help anyone unfortunately.

That's the sad truth. Science reporting by most major news outlets has always sucked big time, mostly due to sheer lack of scientific comprehension. Unfortunately the last few decades have witnessed an increase of ideology and consequently a steady decline of journalistic standard in all types of reporting by all big media establishments. The 'post-truth society' is really a thing.

And Neue Zürcher Zeitung reports unfortunately only in German.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A variety of comments after today's briefing

Article:
Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY).
“We take the issue of unexplained aerial phenomena seriously to the extent that we’re dealing with the safety and security of US military personnel or the national security interests of the United States, so we want to know what we’re dealing with. I think it’s important to understand that there are legitimate questions involving the safety and security of our personnel, and in our operations and in our sensitive activities, and we all know that there’s [a] proliferation of technologies out there. We need to understand the space a little bit better.”

Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.)

“You know it’s always about our safety and security — our national security is [priority] number one — and so that’s really the area where we really focused on this morning.”

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) House Intelligence Committee chairman
“It was an interesting briefing. I did learn things that were certainly new to me. But I think I’m going to leave it at that.”

Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.)
“We’re looking forward to having a public hearing at some point. I mean, there’s some national security concerns that we want to take into consideration.”

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.)
“The stigma is gone. Now that’s as big a change in policy as I’ve witnessed about this issue in my lifetime. So the fact that they are taking this sort of thing seriously for the first time, I think, is important.”
“What do they say in ‘Contact’? Occam’s razor,” he said. “I still think that’s what’s real, and there are things we can’t explain.”
“If I had to predict how the public will react to this, one word would be ‘disappointing,'”

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)
“I’m not on the edge of my seat.”
 
That's the sad truth. Science reporting by most major news outlets has always sucked big time, mostly due to sheer lack of scientific comprehension. Unfortunately the last few decades have witnessed an increase of ideology and consequently a steady decline of journalistic standard in all types of reporting by all big media establishments. The 'post-truth society' is really a thing.

And Neue Zürcher Zeitung reports unfortunately only in German.

Journalists are neglecting their duty. It's all about the buck now and feeding echo chambers of revenue. No doubt the attention span of readers is another consideration. The list above that Mick posted, we need more of those with concise summaries of "truths".
 

Ravi

Active Member
A variety of comments after today's briefing

I find it rather funny that after 70 years of photographed UFOs, they now conclude that it all of a sudden a national security issue.

Suspicious things happening..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alphadunk

Active Member
I find it rather funny that after 70 years of photographed UFOs, they now conclude that it all of a sudden a national security issue.

Suspicious things happening..

Also curious that there has been exactly zero mention or acknowledgement from officials about reexamining sightings prior to 2004. It's like they've retconned the entire subject. We're supposed to believe the Navy started "seeing things" around 2004 up until the present day.
 
It's almost like they know exactly what they are because they are theirs, and the idea of them being 'aliens' may be more palatable to the "great unwashed" than executing tests around their own citizens or staff. Innit. It is clear from the pleasant polite conversation ( which has been quite bonkers misrepresented by some ) between Dietrich and Mick West how such a test might be seen by those involved.
While not subscribing to the "psyop" conspiracy around certain aspects of ufotwitter, one could conclude there is enough evidence to suggest some folks may be offering themselves up as useful idiots. This is not speculation btw, more observation.
 

Domzh

Active Member
i believe you interpret too much into it. they also had the batman balloon in their powerpoint allegedly. they see a picture or a testimony, have more important things to do than to invest a lot of manpower into investigating it and move on.

i personally dont believe the tic tac was a highly advanced test craft by the us. i believe its just a more mysterious "batman balloon", something that was perceived way more strange than it was in reality. its basically just the lead story because of how fravor and ttsa sold it to the public.
 

JMartJr

Active Member
It's almost like they know exactly what they are because they are theirs, and the idea of them being 'aliens' may be more palatable...

I run into the same issue with that which I also run into with the It's Aliens hypothesis -- the actual evidence that we have, the videos, does not show anything unusual. It does not show alien tech doing crazy stuff that seems impossible, nor does it show secret military tech doing crazy stuff that seems impossible. For some reason all that extreme maneuvering stuff always happens when the camera is not on the object! Wwhat we have in the videos show objects just sort of flying along in a straight line that don't do anything at all.

Is it possible one of those objects is a spacecraft full of visiting aliens that is just flying along at speeds between those of a jet and a balloon? Sure, there is just no reason to think so. Is it possible they show secret military technology that has capabillities that would seem incredible to us layfolks, videoed while just flying along normally like planes? Sure, there is just no reason to think so.
 
That's a fair enough criticism of my lazily worded point tbh, I would edit it to: but they could be quite mundane and still be part of a test. I didn't mention that anything behaved in defiance of known science.
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Things the UAPTF report needs to show but which I doubt we will get

1) Who is in the UAPTF
2) What scientists + contractors did they use
Included in this, I'd like to see if Elizondo, Eric Davis, Puthoff or Bigelow and co have been
involved.
3) References to studies on each case which should include the data analysed
4) Who peer reviewed the report
5) Assumptions made and what external research was referenced
 
Things the UAPTF report needs to show but which I doubt we will get

1) Who is in the UAPTF
2) What scientists + contractors did they use
Included in this, I'd like to see if Elizondo, Eric Davis, Puthoff or Bigelow and co have been
involved.
3) References to studies on each case which should include the data analysed
4) Who peer reviewed the report
5) Assumptions made and what external research was referenced

Your point 2) are you basing this on Elizondo mentioning he was currently a government contractor with security access intact ?
 

jackfrostvc

Active Member
Your point 2) are you basing this on Elizondo mentioning he was currently a government contractor with security access intact ?
Yes, and an interview where he was asked if he was consulting to the UAPTF and gave a very sheepish answer. Basically saying h wasnt at liberty to answer
 

Domzh

Active Member
what i believe is so hard to explain to people is that the pentagon or navy isnt conducting very serious and resource intensive investigations at all.

someone reported seeing something, it wasnt behaving in a hostile way, case closed and they move on.

now you have the "official investigation" from biggelow and friends who come up with official statements from the pentagon or dod (Elizondo, Reid, Melon) that they raise concerns and cant exclude ET, this then get picked up by their friends Knapp and Corbel and pushed and hyped up even more.

I mean Lou literally says he was frustrated because there was no funding and no one took it seriously. So this literally contradicts the narrative that they have deep secretive knowledge of black tech or ET, because if they had they would have taken this matter serious just for the sake of information control and possible leaking.

The senate's only source of informations from these past events comes from
the work of AATIP aka Biggelow and Elizondo and Reid. They dont have the time to look into it as deep as we do and roll with the conclusions of these guys. So the batman balloon will be seen as a UAP and possible physics defying craft from adversaries or zorg's spaceship from uranus.

The result is a broad official concern that paints this ET narrative legit and fuels even more wrong reasoning, assumptions and conclusions.

In stark contrast you have countries such as Germany who says they dont have UFOs. They have reportings but are able to
explain everything because they have an open sharing of data from all agencies (military, flight control, weather data and phenomena, etc). So every agency can use all available data there is.

I wonder if these guys really believe in their own narrative and just dont realize they are lacking data or proper scientific approaches or if they utilize UAPs for their personal agendas.

So yes, I agree, it would be extremely important to know who is part of the UAPTF incl their scientists and advisors.

If all of them are from the circle of Biggelow and Elizondo then thats an issue..

To me personally all of this feels extremely orchestrated.. Just because of the convenient lack of real evidence and the core people involved.


***
Germany doesnt have UFO

"This does not mean, however, that the ministry and the Bundeswehr do not observe and protect air and near space," the spokesman assures, adding, "In Germany, we pursue a networked approach in which various institutions work together across departments. The Space Situation Center today already warns of dangers posed by space debris or even asteroids/meteorites. The military part of the interdepartmental Space Situation Center will become part of the German Armed Forces Space Command and thus continue to perform this warning function.

The Bundeswehr Geoinformation Center (ZGeoBw) also provides all organizational units with the geoinformation they need. This includes, for example, weather reports or map material. The Center for Geoinformation covers all geoinformation. Essentially, these are from the fields of biology, ethnology, remote sensing, geography, geodesy, geoinformatics, geology, geophysics, geopolitics, hydroacoustics, hydrography, hydrology, cartography, climatology, meteorology, ecology, oceanography and photogrammetry. The center updates relevant information, produces and provides elevation data, and prepares meteorological forecasts for the Bundeswehr and NATO. Overall, however, these services do not study UFO phenomena, but bring together different observational aspects and expertise."

**"So far, there have simply been no recorded incidents and observations that we have not been able to explain technically, meteorologically or astrophysically. For example, the Space Siting Center is capable of detecting even the smallest fragments of space debris. Larger or even purposefully directed objects would therefore stand out. Nevertheless, such observations are not available."

"Finally, in Germany we apparently do not have the reporting volume of unidentified phenomena as is the case in the U.S., if only because of the much larger geographic area. Also, there is obviously a much greater public interest in the U.S."

"So it's not that we're not interested in incidents in our airspace because they seem puzzling or inexplicable at first. But it is the case that so far we have no such observations that could not have been explained. And where there are no observations and findings of unidentified phenomena, there is no need - for example, in the form of an UAP task force or similar - to become active."**

https://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktue...-in-deutschland-keine-uap-task-force20210601/
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
It's pretty clear Elizondo wants his fans to believe he is involved with the task force which is strange given his comments about how he doesn't expect the report to show anything compelling. He really wants it both ways doesn't he? His desire to remain relevant to the narrative while also downplaying expectations from the government is pretty telling.

As I understand it the report isn't meant to be a study, per se, so I wouldn't expect any kind of peer review or granular analytics. That said, I'd be pretty surprised if the usual UFO circle isn't intimately involved in the whole thing.
 

Domzh

Active Member
Personal opinion and speculation: i believe his agenda is pretty obvious and he doesnt even try to hide it.

he wants to push the ET narrative and paint himself as the man in the know who
still knows what is happening and at the same time raise doubt in the report findings. People will see him as their ufo disclosure hope and vote for him once he runs for public office.

Almost 50% of americans believe in ET have visited earth (https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/americans-believe-in-ufos-aliens), thats a pretty big potential voter base to leverage. And no one took advantage of them in the past.
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
Strangely enough Elizondo is not really a proponent of the ET hypothesis. Over the last year he's started leaning pretty heavily into fringe hypotheses, even into what I'd call "supernatural" territory. Of course he'll never come right out and say what he thinks but he's gone out his way many times to heavily imply he doesn't think the explanation is as simple as visitation from space aliens.

It's worth remembering Elizondo is part of the Skinwalker Ranch crowd and he's implied he believes in a lot of that junk too.
 
Last edited:

MclachlanM

Active Member
Strangely enough Elizondo is not really a proponent of the ET hypothesis. Over the last year he's started leaning pretty heavily into fringe hypotheses, even into what I'd call "supernatural" territory. Of course he'll never come right out and say what he thinks but he's gone out his way many times to heavily imply he doesn't think the explanation is as simple as visitation from space aliens.

It's worth remembering Elizondo is part of the Skinwalker Ranch crowd and he's implied he believes in a lot of that junk too.

Elizondo is clearly playing his cards close to his chest, he definitely seems to be a UFO fan but I can't actually find anything with him outright stating what he believes.
Maybe he doesn't want to make definite statements cause he knows a lot of the UFO, Corbell and TTSA audience are also fans of more supernaturally type stuff and he doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him (some of Corbell's other documentaries touch on cold fusion, shamans and the rapture) but also wants to maintain his integrity in the media and for his next project, Skyfort.

Here is an example of him being vague about the weirder part of UFOlogy and Skinwalker Ranch:
ADAM: If we consider the theoretical implications behind the phenomenon’s true nature, should we discuss the importance of Dr. Garry Nolan (Antenna, basal ganglia bio markers) + Jacques Vallée (Passport to Magonia, High Strangeness) and any discerning link to the multiple anomalous activity of Skinwalker Ranch?

LUE:
I think we should look at all available data and information but also recognize that not all of it will be found to be necessarily related. In essence, any theory is a good theory until you can prove otherwise. However, we must not be tempted to go down a path where we fool ourselves into thinking we have the answers and know the true narrative at this point in time. As I have stipulated before, I think we simply don't have enough data yet to make any conclusive decision as to the nature of the phenomena. I also think the work of Mr. Nolan and Mr. Vallée is important and I respect these men greatly; but I also am careful not to offer an opinion as to the anticipated results. I respect greatly their pursuit of the scientific method and trust in their methodologies and approaches, but as we all know about the world of science (and they will tell you themselves), any result must stand before a trial of peers and be repeatable and replicable before it can be accepted as fact. And this is the challenge we all face.

ADAM: Additionally, can we truly rule out an intertwined co-dependency between UAP and human consciousness with regard to ‘subconscious projection’? (Aka, are there really ‘Tic-Tacs’ or, are ‘Tic-Tacs’ what some pilots encounter because that’s what is projected when engaged with such anomalous phenomena?). Again, are these more complex hypothetical concepts to be considered in official research as we progress beyond the ‘acceptance phase’ of the general public?

LUE: Unfortunately I am not qualified to answer this question. This is a question that will likely require experts in human mental health, psychology, and neuroscience, none of which am I qualified to offer an opinion.

In essence, any theory is a good theory until you can prove otherwise.
I like this line in particular.
 

Domzh

Active Member
I like this line in particular.
I dont. When I say "Gravity are little invisible goblins shooting harpoons with a string attached at every object and pulling it towards themselves exactly at the rates our data suggests" than this isnt a good theory. its bullcrap without any evidence supporting it.
 
ADAM: Additionally, can we truly rule out an intertwined co-dependency between UAP and human consciousness with regard to ‘subconscious projection’? (Aka, are there really ‘Tic-Tacs’ or, are ‘Tic-Tacs’ what some pilots encounter because that’s what is projected when engaged with such anomalous phenomena?). Again, are these more complex hypothetical concepts to be considered in official research as we progress beyond the ‘acceptance phase’ of the general public?

LUE: Unfortunately I am not qualified to answer this question. This is a question that will likely require experts in human mental health, psychology, and neuroscience, none of which am I qualified to offer an opinion.

But Sam Harris would be? Assuming Lue IS part of the team preparing this report, it may be legitimate that Harris has been contacted by the someone ( the government ? ) as he has stated recently, and will be included on a zoom call with "Former Heads of the CIA and the Office of Naval research".

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxtgx1LiIU


I'm sure Harris may have been picked for nothing other than his qualifications, and his mass following (now) including many who are suspicious of the "government", is just a coincidence.
 
Last edited:

Domzh

Active Member
personal opinion: this becomes more and more of a political circus. they really wanna push this narrative leveraging influencers to reach and steer their tribe. i dont know but this literally screams "orchestrated campaign" and we have one or two main characters in this development that should know this game inside out.

question for the guys living in the us, is this topic really becoming as big as it feels or is this a flawed perception because I / we have an interest in it and are actively looking for information and news about it?
 

Alphadunk

Active Member
question for the guys living in the us, is this topic really becoming as big as it feels or is this a flawed perception because I / we have an interest in it and are actively looking for information and news about it?

That's a hard question to quantify. UFO "stuff" has been popular in America since the 1950's and the popularity seems to peak every 30-40 years. It was extremely popular in the 50's as well as the 1990's. Consequently, there has been a ton of media coverage simply because those stories generate a lot of views/clicks. Just look at the number of views on the 60 Minutes video from a few weeks ago! The topic has been a mainstay in American pop culture for many decades and isn't likely to go away anytime soon. I'd make the argument that it is a harmless interest for the vast majority of Americans who follow the subject. #UFOTwitter doesn't represent most of us lol
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
D 2018 Pentagon Triangle Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
LarryLobster Off-Camera Pentagon Press Briefing comment on UAPs as Aliens: UFOs and Aliens 2
bird_up "Gimbal UFO video rendered in 3D" by Abominati0n UFOs and Aliens 5
Mick West The Evolution of Official DoD/Pentagon Statements Regarding The Navy UFO Videos and UAP Investigations UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 6
TEEJ Pentagon to launch task force to investigate UFO sightings - August 14, 2020 CNN Article UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 28
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
Agent K Air Force E-11A Communications Aircraft Crashes And Burns In Afghanistan Current Events 7
Mick West Inexperienced Pilot Recreating 9/11 Flight 77's Descending Turn into the Pentagon 9/11 77
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
inkwell American Airlines Flight 77 Aircraft Accident Package lists no. of Passengers/Fatalies as "Unknown" Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: "FBI releases 27 classified photos of 9/11 Pentagon attacks" [Not New] 9/11 8
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
USAFMXOfficer 9/11 - Pentagon 86 CCTV videos 9/11 6
TWCobra AA77-Pentagon explosion plume compared to known aircraft fires 9/11 0
Critical Thinker foreignpolicy.com: The Pentagon Has a Plan to Stop the Zombie Apocalypse. Seriously. General Discussion 4
Mick West Debunked: $8.5 Trillion Missing from the Pentagon Conspiracy Theories 19
T Fake 9/11 footage of cruise missile hitting pentagon 9/11 15
hiper lack of a Pentagon boeing video 9/11 117
BombDr Did the Pentagon have air defenses on 9/11? 9/11 20
Eric A. Eisenbise The Pentagon is The key to 911 9/11 26
Oxymoron 9/11 - Did flight AA77 Hit The Pentagon? 9/11 147
Mick West Debunked: FunVax, Pentagon Briefing on Removing the God Gene [Hoax] HAARP 57
Mick West Debunked: Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon Quotes Debunked 52
A Triangle UFO over Shanghai, June 2021 UFOs and Aliens 27
LorentzHall 12 June 2021 UFO Over Lake Michigan Chicago (Short Clip) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 24
DasKleineTeilchen 2,400 "new" unseen 9/11 photos found at estate sale, june 2019 9/11 12
Mick West A Rippled Distrail Near Las Vegas June 17 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Trailblazer Explained: Contrail Cross in Florida, June 2 2016 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Chew Yosemite Contrail Grid 17 June 2015 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 16
TWCobra Max Bliss "3 chemtrails" Video. 20th June 2014 Contrails and Chemtrails 3
MikeC International day of action June 30? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
LorentzHall White Flying Object Over US Navy base in Japan (July 2021) Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
A Explained: UFO Filmed from a Helicopter in Kamchatka, Russia. May 31, 2021 [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 2
flarkey Cigar Shaped UFO - March 23, 2021 Captured by commercial airline pilots Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
R Worldwide Eratosthenes stick experiment, May 14, 15, 16 2021 Flat Earth 14
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
TEEJ Richard Citizen Journalist proves that Biden Rose Garden address was a live event at the White House, 12th March 2021 Election 2020 15
I Thylacines in Tasmania (New photos from 1st March 2021) General Discussion 44
Mick West Three Contrails "Descending" over Denver on Jan 31, 2021 [Military, C-17A Globemasters] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 1
Mick West "Advanced Aerial Threats" In Report on US Congress' Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021 UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 4
Related Articles








































Related Articles

Top