TTSA Videos Declassification Email Exchange Release under FOIA

abyssal dission

New Member
New here, but I would just like to throw in my 2 cents.

"training ranges"

This person did not just tack those words on without thinking, those words were tacked on either deliberately or subconsciously because, if this is some sort of recurring event for the military, it recurs at training ranges. The 2004 Nimitz event certainly took place at a usual training range.

I believe this is a bigger find than anyone has yet realized because it could be used to imply what motivations there would be for these "objects" to be there.
 
Last edited:
I still think it was maybe an honest mistake by Elizondo. and the NYTimes isn't going to retract their claim of an official DOD release unless the DOD takes punitive action against Elizondo, and then THAT becomes a "big story" all the papers jump on.

Although I still don't get how "public release" means you can sell someone else's intellectual property for your own profit (TTSA). The whole situation is super weird.

Hi Deirdre,

Agreed and plausible, on top of that and to add another layer of nutella weirdness, wouldn't Elizondo and maybe even some other people from TTSA be facing charges/prosecuted by now for showing these videos, specially the two last ones since they were unknown to the best of my knowledge?

Same question with Elizondo and his claim to be heading AATIP?

This gives a lot of fuel to conspiracy theories imo.


Cheers,
Chris
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
wouldn't Elizondo and maybe even some other people from TTSA be facing charges/prosecuted by now for showing these videos
ive said in other threads, I personally think it depends on how much the military cares. it's not like they can put the genie back in the box. Plus I think these blob videos make TTSA look silly. I imagine the military thinks the same. Although that's obviously just a guess on my part.
 

abyssal dission

New Member
I wonder how aware they were of the fact that the Nimitz video was available on the web since 2007 on a film website. I'm still left questioning what that means, exactly. Even if back then you had to find a random website to upload something to in order to save it for later, why would you choose a film company's website of all places to hold something like that? You'd think you'd foresee how suspicious that would seem.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But, as Greenewald stated yesterday:

"training exercises utilizing classified drone or related technology seems like a plausible explanation for these encounters, ...these new statements by the Navy labeling the cases as “unidentified aerial phenomena” are making some second guess that theory."
The implication here is that people are suggesting that there's something beyond the capabilities of current technology on display in the videos, and that would be explained by "classified drone or related technology."

I'm certainly not suggesting that there needs to be any super-advanced technology on display that needs explaining. Maybe one or two of them is a drone, but drones are just jet planes with jet engines.
 
Top