Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Excellent Lou Elizondo interview


Phantom309
 Share

Recommended Posts

Lou Elizondo - walking that fine line and revealing as much as he can at this point, one of which is the U.S. is in possession of "exotic" material:

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Phantom 309, for sharing this interview. Having viewed in through, I agree with you-- it is excellent. Mr. Elizondo is articulate, careful, and reasonable. The interviewer is respectful and relatively unhurried.  The two have a good chemistry between them.

One point that was not raised about the possibility that UAPs are foreign (Earthbound) technology:  UAPs have been exhibiting the same remarkable technology for seventy years, at least. If some nation on our planet were responsible, why wouldn't they have incorporated such overwhelming technology into their military forces, and gone on to wholly rule the world by now?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As things stand, right now, without a definitive “the government of X has Y from Z” statement, all we’re left with is “ner ner I know a secret” style comments from everyone involved. 
If you know something, pony up and say it. Bob Lazar is still alive after all, and apparently he broke the biggest secret of them all. All those psychics who accessed Dolce Base are still alive after revealing rhe results of their psychic probing. 
“Exotic technology” - what? From where? Come on, don’t **** on my leg and tell me it’s a puppy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, the title sorta gives it away:

"It's My Belief..."  :D 

That's the key thing they wish to highlight?

Normally, I would avoid these sort of puffery, contentless videos like the plague-on-humanity that they are, but perhaps I shall use this one to make a point.  I'm going to go through it with a fine tooth comb, in a number of instalments, as I have time.  Just bear in mind that I have other commitments - I'm replacing an LED parker light on my vehicle and rerouting a USB cable on my dashcam to make it look neater.  Obviously these things are much more important, so I'll be back when I can..

 

But let's just start with the Intro.  It begins with a preview of what we can expect {notes in brackets are mine}....

Quote

Elizondo: What separates these from anything else that we have in our current inventories {is} quite simple - there's 5 observables that associate .. when you look at something as a UAP, an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, as being truly unique.  That's:

  1. Instantaneous Acceleration
  2. Hypersonic Velocity
  3. Low Observability {??}
  4. Trans-Medium Travel - the ability to operate in multiple environments or domains, and last but not least in the vernacular would be ..
  5. AntiGravity - the ability to fly with no wings, no control surfaces, no visible means of propulsion and even {sic} frankly not even a cockpit

Now, I'm going to pause there for a little while (LED parker light first...) but during that time, if anyone wants to chime in please do, either to correct me in my transcription, or to help the debate along.  Suffice to say that even with this very brief initial summary (27 minutes still to come), I have some big problems with his definitions and (empty, unevidenced) claims.  I particularly like claims 1 and 5, they go together very well... and as for 3... ummmmmm?????  :wacko:

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few initial comments (yes, my led light is now working, also rerouted that cable and even fixed a seat squeak....)

Quote

Elizondo: What separates these from anything else that we have in our current inventories {is} quite simple

Is Elizondo referring to "ToTheStars" when he says 'ours', or does he mean the US Defence Force?  What about other defence forces - Australia has come out to say that they have seen nothing showing unexplainable UFO/UAP behavior.

Quote

Elizondo: There's 5 observables that associate .. when you look at something as a UAP, an Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, as being truly unique.

Interesting.  Who defined those 5 characteristics?  That is certainly NOT how the US military define UAP.  Indeed, from their report, they say:

Quote

In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis.

In other words, NO HARD EVIDENCE, and just a few reports aka anecdotes... 

Back to Elizondo...

Quote

Instantaneous Acceleration

What is Elizondo's definition of 'instantaneous'?  If it is the literal dictionary definition, it breaks the laws of physics.  If it's not, then he obviously needs to show us evidence and numbers and real data.  NONE of the videos presented by his 'crack' team have shown anything like that.

Quote

Hypersonic Velocity

Admittedly there aren't many, but we already have hypersonic ability in aircraft and spacecraft.  But again, he's presented ZERO evidence that supports this claim.

Quote

Low Observability

Seriously, what the hell?  Does this mean 'too distant', 'blurry', comes out only at night,  or what?  Is he seriously inferring some sort of camera detection ability?  Bwahahahah...

Quote

Trans-Medium Travel - the ability to operate in multiple environments or domains, and last but not least in the vernacular would be ..

I presume this is just Elizondo's fancy way of saying it can travel through air and water.  Again, we have lots of stuff, esp. drones nowadays that can do that.  And if it needs to do both, that eliminates the vast majority of UFOs....

Quote

AntiGravity - the ability to fly with no wings, no control surfaces, no visible means of propulsion and even {sic} frankly not even a cockpit

Yes, if you break physics of course you could do anti-grav.  And on distant objects, esp. in IR, the wings won't show up and he's already said 'low observability' so how the hell could he resolve a lack of control surfaces or a cockpit?  That is just beyond dumb.

 

And that's just the beginning... sigh.  I'm losing the will to live and I haven't even started..

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

...

This is also directly from your link you provided above:

1.  144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors. o Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity. 

2.  In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics.

    2a.  Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated

    2b.  Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management

    2c.  The UAPTF is looking for novel ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when U.S. forces are not present as a way to baseline “standard” UAP activity and mitigate the collection bias in the dataset. One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars. The UAPTF also plans to update its current interagency UAP collection strategy in order bring to bear relevant collection platforms and methods from the DoD and the IC

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manwon, please point out the bit in amongst all that which proves non-terrestrial capability.  The only claims of that are stories and there is NO, I repeat NO actual collected evidence, eg properly collected and analysed radar tracking data.  Added - your own quotes contained:

Quote

Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated

Read that last sentence over and over...  A couple of 'breakthrough technologies' were reported, but NOT evidenced.

Isn't that fact obvious by the fact they are not giving any numbers or showing the calculations - the fact that no such numbers exist is because there is no recorded data that verifies the claims.

 

Anyway, let's continue..  After that 'preview', the interview started with Charles Burton from BritishGQ (a men's lifestyle magazine).

He began with this, rather amateurishly reverting to the misuse of the term UFO:

Quote

Burton: Before we begin, I'm just going to bring everybody up to speed on what's been happening in the news for the last few years.  So, last year the Pentagon made an extraordinary statement.  They said that UFOs are real and it has videos to prove it.

No, that's not what they said at all.  The Release was titled "Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos", and here it is, in full:

Quote

The Department of Defense has authorized the release of three unclassified Navy videos, one taken in November 2004 and the other two in January 2015, which have been circulating in the public domain after unauthorized releases in 2007 and 2017. The U.S. Navy previously acknowledged that these videos circulating in the public domain were indeed Navy videos. After a thorough review, the department has determined that the authorized release of these unclassified videos does not reveal any sensitive capabilities or systems, and does not impinge on any subsequent investigations of military air space incursions by unidentified aerial phenomena. DOD is releasing the videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos. The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as "unidentified." The released videos can be found...

Note that they did not use the term UFO - it would be utterly stupid to claim that there were no things in the sky that were not identifiable.  There will always be UFO's - doesn't matter how good your camera / radar is, there will always be something just too far away or too briefly in the field of view, to be positively ID'd.  Also note the wording does not indicate anything was unexplainable or represented a threat, in fact they said quite the reverse.  Back to Burton:

Quote

It released 3 pieces of footage shot from the targeting cameras of US Navy fighter jets which showed close encounters with fast moving ..

How fast?  WE actually KNOW how fast moving they all were or weren't, and none of them are shown to be doing anything beyond a normal aircraft.  Indeed one was going quite slowly.   But see below...

Quote

strange looking ..

Sorry???  They were pretty much featureless blobs, as IR images of distant objects generally are. 

Quote

.. craft that the Navy pilots later said defied the known laws of physics.  The Pentagon's statement is up there {motions towards screen}...

Read that carefully - there was NO video or radar verification of any physics breaches, just stories by one or two pilots.  Look, this is really simple - you do NOT get to claim that something broke the laws of physics or was instantaneous or 'out of range' or unexplainable .. UNLESS you can provide the numbers, the measurements, the base data to support that claim.

 

Why does this not get through to some here?

Let me answer, it's because *their* world view is that they dearly want this to be a mystery, or alien, or multidimensional or time travel or similar.  That sounds so much more exciting than simply a pilot who exaggerates or wants to get onto the seminar money-making trail, or someone who was new at operating a radar system....

 

Finally, if you think my demands for the numbers/data are unreasonable, would anyone like to see an example of the analysis of the FLIR imagery?  Before you say yes, you will be giving away that you really haven't researched this stuff .. or you would have already seen some of the many comprehensive analyses of those 3 videos across the web.  These analyses may seem a little complex, but they generally involve simple geometry and algebra, combined with a basic understanding of perspective and relative/angular velocities ... and camera capability and tracking mount issues.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Thread cleaned

@ChrLzs - please tone down the hostility - the discussion works best when everyone remains civil and avoids making things personal.

Thank you.

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Manwon, please point out the bit in amongst all that which proves non-terrestrial capability.  The only claims of that are stories and there is NO, I repeat NO actual collected evidence, eg properly collected and analysed radar tracking data.  Added - your own quotes contained:

Read that last sentence over and over...  A couple of 'breakthrough technologies' were reported, but NOT evidenced.

Isn't that fact obvious by the fact they are not giving any numbers or showing the calculations - the fact that no such numbers exist is because there is no recorded data that verifies the claims.

 

Anyway, let's continue..  After that 'preview', the interview started with Charles Burton from BritishGQ (a men's lifestyle magazine).

He began with this, rather amateurishly reverting to the misuse of the term UFO:

No, that's not what they said at all.  The Release was titled "Statement by the Department of Defense on the Release of Historical Navy Videos", and here it is, in full:

Note that they did not use the term UFO - it would be utterly stupid to claim that there were no things in the sky that were not identifiable.  There will always be UFO's - doesn't matter how good your camera / radar is, there will always be something just too far away or too briefly in the field of view, to be positively ID'd.  Also note the wording does not indicate anything was unexplainable or represented a threat, in fact they said quite the reverse.  Back to Burton:

How fast?  WE actually KNOW how fast moving they all were or weren't, and none of them are shown to be doing anything beyond a normal aircraft.  Indeed one was going quite slowly.   But see below...

Sorry???  They were pretty much featureless blobs, as IR images of distant objects generally are. 

Read that carefully - there was NO video or radar verification of any physics breaches, just stories by one or two pilots.  Look, this is really simple - you do NOT get to claim that something broke the laws of physics or was instantaneous or 'out of range' or unexplainable .. UNLESS you can provide the numbers, the measurements, the base data to support that claim.

 

Why does this not get through to some here?

Let me answer, it's because *their* world view is that they dearly want this to be a mystery, or alien, or multidimensional or time travel or similar.  That sounds so much more exciting than simply a pilot who exaggerates or wants to get onto the seminar money-making trail, or someone who was new at operating a radar system....

 

Finally, if you think my demands for the numbers/data are unreasonable, would anyone like to see an example of the analysis of the FLIR imagery?  Before you say yes, you will be giving away that you really haven't researched this stuff .. or you would have already seen some of the many comprehensive analyses of those 3 videos across the web.  These analyses may seem a little complex, but they generally involve simple geometry and algebra, combined with a basic understanding of perspective and relative/angular velocities ... and camera capability and tracking mount issues.

Lets play a New Game ChLzs its called you prove everyone is wrong, however since you have spoken about mathematics' like your a professor it should be very simple for you to provide Peer Reviewed Journals that demonstrate the Geometrical. Algebraic, and Angular Velocities that you seem to feel are far to complex for the forums membership. In addition to that providing Peer Reviewed Journals that demonstrate the total impossibility of everything being discussed would also be very very helpful for those of us who are not as well educated as you have stated that you are  here. Then maybe you could prepare a class for the forum where you can teach everyone and demonstrate why your absolutely correct and everyone else is incorrect.

But please do not provide youtube videos from some obscure individuals or groups of individuals you feel are valid researchers. Who ever you choose to use to demonstrate that your correct needs to be a well Documented Academic or group of Academics with a background in this field of research study!.

I think that is fair, I will wait for your class and demonstration thank you very much for volunteering you time to do this, and I mean that very sincerely because we are never to old to learn something new!:tu:  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Saru said:

Thread cleaned

@ChrLzs - please tone down the hostility - the discussion works best when everyone remains civil and avoids making things personal.

Thank you.

Certainly.  I apologise, my only excuse being that as I pointed out, this stuff just keeps being repeated and misrepresented, over and over..

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Lets play a New Game ChLzs its called you prove everyone is wrong, however since you have spoken about mathematics' like your a professor it should be very simple for you to provide Peer Reviewed Journals that demonstrate the Geometrical. Algebraic, and Angular Velocities that you seem to feel are far to complex for the forums membership. In addition to that providing Peer Reviewed Journals that demonstrate the total impossibility of everything being discussed would also be very very helpful for those of us who are not as well educated as you have stated that you are  here. Then maybe you could prepare a class for the forum where you can teach everyone and demonstrate why your absolutely correct and everyone else is incorrect.

But please do not provide youtube videos from some obscure individuals or groups of individuals you feel are valid researchers. Who ever you choose to use to demonstrate that your correct needs to be a well Documented Academic or group of Academics with a background in this field of research study!.

I think that is fair, I will wait for your class and demonstration thank you very much for volunteering you time to do this, and I mean that very sincerely because we are never to old to learn something new!:tu:  

Who needs peer reviewed mathematics? There are just as many textbooks in the world as there are lecturers.

All we need is data.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Who needs peer reviewed mathematics? There are just as many textbooks in the world as there are lecturers.

All we need is data.

I dont disagree with you, I am just a little tired of all the Sarcastic and Negative comments some people make when they address others and when they discuss this and other similar topics of interest. There is absolutely no reason to speak to people disrespectfully and these actions have made some members stop posting and some to leave the forum entirely. If you dont understand where I am coming from then we must agree to disagree, its just like the SARS-Cov-2 Virus comments that are made they need to be backed up with research.

Except on this subject there is no solid foundation of solid of facts, either there is nothing or there is much more too it than we are being told so the the discussion must be discussed from a theoretical stand point based upon the information we have. One question no one has effectively answered is why would would the US Government intentionally perpetuate a hoax and why if they are not trying to create a hoax are they in the past 10 years doing a 180 degree shift from the UFO phenomenon is BS to what they are doing today. 

Now I dont believe that extraterrestrials have ever visited the planet Earth, however I do believe that a species more advanced than ours could send unoccupied probes to our planet. Hell we have sent probes out into the Universe in an attempt to make contact with another intelligent species and that was a major part of the Voyager Space Missions.

Peace my friend!:tu:

That my opinion on the subject and technically speaking from a point of theoretical physics it is not beyond the realm of possibility.:tu: 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The response of the governments of the world, if they were aware of an extraterrestrial presence at Earth? I surmise it would be one of denial, as long as they believed that such a stance could be credibly maintained.

To admit such a presence would be to reveal their own inability to control  the actions of a technically superior civilization. The military, in particular, would be loathe to admit that extraterrestrials and/or their automated machines, could come and go as they please, on and around the Earth.

The recent change in attitude, has been one of a shift from denial to an admission that the UAP phenomenon is very real, and worthy of careful and intensive study. This suggests that something has changed in the situation. What that could be, I couldn't say.  It would presumably bear on the problem of no longer being able to maintain the former policy of denial.      

Edited by bison
erased duplicated word.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Lets play a New Game ChLzs its called you prove everyone is wrong

You do understand the concept of Burden Of Proof, and why that concept exists?  No, I won't be doing as you ask.

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

however since you have spoken about mathematics' like your a professor

I'm not a Professor, nor did I claim that.  But my hobby and speciality is a science called photogrammetry and I have a lot of experience teaching people new things....  As for me, rather than make judgements about other's abilities, I let their work speak for itself.  Please do me the courtesy of criticising what I post, rather than pre-judge.  Immodestly, I would suggest that I am pretty good at explaining things like perspective and angular and relative velocities and how to actually analyse, for example, FLIR footage, including explaining what all those numbers and symbols on the screen mean...  Some of those FLIR indicators have tripped Mr Elizondo's entire team up...

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

it should be very simple for you to provide Peer Reviewed Journals

As you should know, military analyses are generally NOT posted in peer-reviewed journals.  I'm not sure why you would make that request.

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

that demonstrate the Geometrical Algebraic, and Angular Velocities that you seem to feel are far to complex for the forums membership.

When you wish to have a go at me, please QUOTE what I actually say.  Here's what I said:

Quote

These analyses may seem a little complex, but they generally involve simple geometry and algebra, combined with a basic understanding of perspective and relative/angular velocities ... and camera capability and tracking mount issues.

So I did not refer to forum membership particularly, I said "MAY seem", and I stand by every word.  When you add all the issues up, it does seem a bit complex, even though the basics of each issue are relatively simple.

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

In addition to that providing Peer Reviewed Journals that demonstrate the total impossibility of everything being discussed

Again, this is not a sensible request, and I have never referred to 'total impossibility' in my statements.  Again, plase QUOTE whatever it is you are complaining about.

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

But please do not provide youtube videos from some obscure individuals or groups of individuals you feel are valid researchers. Who ever you choose to use to demonstrate that your correct needs to be a well Documented Academic or group of Academics with a background in this field of research study!

If the logic and mathematics and calculations and numbers are made available and you can check the work, it doesn't matter what the source is.  And again, you seem to have this backwards.  The claim being made here is not mine - Elizondo is repeatedly saying he has evidence of those 5 'traits' of UAP's.  But HE hasn't provided any numbers, nor academics, backing up those claims.

Now, if you are saying that the FLIR images show unexplainable maneuvering, then ... let's face it, that is an extraordinary claim, so you know what they say about such claims... it's up to you or Elizondo to nominate the best evidence.  If you won't do that, we have to assume that stories are good enough for you.  They are not good enough for me. 

11 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I think that is fair, I will wait for your class and demonstration thank you very much for volunteering you time to do this, and I mean that very sincerely because we are never to old to learn something new!:tu:  

I choose to take that as a sincere and genuine compliment.  So, which video would you nominate as the best one, Manwon?  I'll go through it step by step using simple logic that you can attack at will...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I dont disagree with you, I am just a little tired of all the Sarcastic and Negative comments some people make when they address others and when they discuss this and other similar topics of interest. There is absolutely no reason to speak to people disrespectfully and these actions have made some members stop posting and some to leave the forum entirely. If you dont understand where I am coming from then we must agree to disagree, its just like the SARS-Cov-2 Virus comments that are made they need to be backed up with research.

Except on this subject there is no solid foundation of solid of facts, either there is nothing or there is much more too it than we are being told so the the discussion must be discussed from a theoretical stand point based upon the information we have. One question no one has effectively answered is why would would the US Government intentionally perpetuate a hoax and why if they are not trying to create a hoax are they in the past 10 years doing a 180 degree shift from the UFO phenomenon is BS to what they are doing today. 

Again, the simple answer is counterintelligence. It worked magnificently from the 50's through the 90's. Why not dust off some of the old favorites to get the Russians and Chinese looking at things that aren't there?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

You do understand the concept of Burden Of Proof, and why that concept exists?  No, I won't be doing as you ask.

I'm not a Professor, nor did I claim that.  But my hobby and speciality is a science called photogrammetry and I have a lot of experience teaching people new things....  As for me, rather than make judgements about other's abilities, I let their work speak for itself.  Please do me the courtesy of criticising what I post, rather than pre-judge.  Immodestly, I would suggest that I am pretty good at explaining things like perspective and angular and relative velocities and how to actually analyse, for example, FLIR footage, including explaining what all those numbers and symbols on the screen mean...  Some of those FLIR indicators have tripped Mr Elizondo's entire team up...

As you should know, military analyses are generally NOT posted in peer-reviewed journals.  I'm not sure why you would make that request.

When you wish to have a go at me, please QUOTE what I actually say.  Here's what I said:

So I did not refer to forum membership particularly, I said "MAY seem", and I stand by every word.  When you add all the issues up, it does seem a bit complex, even though the basics of each issue are relatively simple.

Again, this is not a sensible request, and I have never referred to 'total impossibility' in my statements.  Again, plase QUOTE whatever it is you are complaining about.

If the logic and mathematics and calculations and numbers are made available and you can check the work, it doesn't matter what the source is.  And again, you seem to have this backwards.  The claim being made here is not mine - Elizondo is repeatedly saying he has evidence of those 5 'traits' of UAP's.  But HE hasn't provided any numbers, nor academics, backing up those claims.

Now, if you are saying that the FLIR images show unexplainable maneuvering, then ... let's face it, that is an extraordinary claim, so you know what they say about such claims... it's up to you or Elizondo to nominate the best evidence.  If you won't do that, we have to assume that stories are good enough for you.  They are not good enough for me. 

I choose to take that as a sincere and genuine compliment.  So, which video would you nominate as the best one, Manwon?  I'll go through it step by step using simple logic that you can attack at will...

Thank you very much for honestly explaining your back ground above, I respect honesty and integrity above everything else and I realize even with that say everyone is ignorant, no one knows all there is to learn or know so ignorance is not an unacceptable term to be applied to anyone.

""As you should know, military analyses are generally NOT posted in peer-reviewed journals.  I'm not sure why you would make that request.""

Military Analysis are more frequently posted in Peer Reviewed Journals depending upon the subject matter than you are aware of, and to be clear here is a perfect example of it, this organization is one of those instances where those Journals are produced US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health ( NCBI ) T cell responses in patients with COVID-19 (nih.gov). So I dont completely agree with you on your comments above, as far as knowing I do. 

""If the logic and mathematics and calculations and numbers are made available and you can check the work, it doesn't matter what the source is.  And again, you seem to have this backwards.  The claim being made here is not mine - Elizondo is repeatedly saying he has evidence of those 5 'traits' of UAP's.  But HE hasn't provided any numbers, nor academics, backing up those claims.""

I think the first thing that must be established is what was Luis Elizondos actual role in the US Government. What I have discovered is Pentagon spokesperson Christopher Sherwood ( Mr. Christopher Sherwood currently serves as a Public Affairs Specialist in the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs ) saying “Mr. Elizondo had no responsibilities with regard to the AATIP program while he worked in OUSDI [the Office of Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence] So from what I have been able to gather so far there is no proof Luis Elizondos worked for the AATIP Program, but that also doesnt prove conclusively that he didn't. My ability to discover such things doesnt exist any longer, but since he has been promoted as a Whistle Blower its also possible our Government is not speaking completely honestly, while most dont believe it :lol: the US Government isn't always fourth coming when someone embarrasses them or divulges sensitive information. In this respect he may not be able to provide any numbers as you say above or he could be a making statements that are not true, in this regard only time will tell for certain.

 

""Now, if you are saying that the FLIR images show unexplainable maneuvering, then ... let's face it, that is an extraordinary claim, so you know what they say about such claims... it's up to you or Elizondo to nominate the best evidence.  If you won't do that, we have to assume that stories are good enough for you.  They are not good enough for me.""

Well here is where we will have to agree to disagree completely from a Military point of view. Currently the FLIR Images are all that we have to view this situation from. 

But do you honestly Believe that if something like this was Picked On FLIR that any US Admiral Responsible for a Battle Group of Navel Vessels would not use every form of Sensor and Imaging device at his disposal to investigate a violation of the Air space around his Battle Group?

Next do you know what types of imaging devices they had at their disposal?

I agree the FLIR images are also not good enough for me, so when you answer my questions above we can continue our discussion. You see my friend I am willing to learn for you and discuss this subject with you so long as continue to do so in the manner you have in the post above. However, the tone you have taken with me and I have taken with you in the past doesnt allow for a discussion so lets allow our past interactions to be water under the bridge I do not believe in holding grudges so lets start over start form here.

Peace and please answer the questions above!:tu:

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Again, the simple answer is counterintelligence. It worked magnificently from the 50's through the 90's. Why not dust off some of the old favorites to get the Russians and Chinese looking at things that aren't there?

That is a very strong Possibility, except there are reports of these same objects from many locations around the World. But even that isn't beyond the capability of our Government to control either. I am certain we have similar points of view on this subject because of background and the work we have both been involved in. But right now for me I am just sitting back and taking all the events that occurred during my Military and other Government service into consideration and looking at this entire situation objectively. So I can gather as much information as possible before I make a personal decision what to believe and what not to, because sooner or later they always make seemingly small mistakes and information is released no matter how hard they try to protect it. 

Peace my friend.:tu: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Manwon.  It's a deal.  :D  However, I'm working today and having a day off tomorrow, so it might be a few days before I get back to this.  Do you have a favorite video of the three, namely FLIR, GOFAST OR GIMBAL?  Or is there a section of the OP video that you were particularly enamoured with? - I'd really prefer not to go through all 28 minutes worth...

 

I will also try to find time to go through two others.

- the 'Triangle UFO' video (a really good example of something that should never been taken seriously by anyone with even the most basic photographic experience..)

- the 'Splashdown' video (sadly the quality of this one is awful, which is a pity because it is actually quite interesting..)

Stay tuned, folks....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Thank you, Manwon.  It's a deal.  :D  However, I'm working today and having a day off tomorrow, so it might be a few days before I get back to this.  Do you have a favorite video of the three, namely FLIR, GOFAST OR GIMBAL?  Or is there a section of the OP video that you were particularly enamoured with? - I'd really prefer not to go through all 28 minutes worth...

 

I will also try to find time to go through two others.

- the 'Triangle UFO' video (a really good example of something that should never been taken seriously by anyone with even the most basic photographic experience..)

- the 'Splashdown' video (sadly the quality of this one is awful, which is a pity because it is actually quite interesting..)

Stay tuned, folks....

We can start with the questions, please give you opinion based upon the first question to begin with then we can go through the second question I asked and discuss all the imaging devices other than FLIR that were being used during the encounters along with some Top Secret Documents that I have that have been declassified that you may not have seen. We can also talk about the other aircraft that were in the Air the E-2C Hawkeye, because they were not tracking the objects with only FLIR, they were tracking the objects while Airborne using the AN/APS-145 radar . During the same time frame the USS Princeton was using SPY-1D(V) which is a 3D radar tracking system. I think that's enough to start with. Pick any of those systems but I dont want to discuss FLIR except to review the Videos.

Last I want to say that anyone cane join into the discussion, but the basic ground rules are simple, this is designed to be informative and a learning process, its not about who is the smartest guy in the room. If anyone participating doesnt know an answer or can't with in reason or supply some form of supporting documentation to back up their comments whenever we are in that part of discussion we can move from or present theoretical situations that we may agree upon, I want to keep this as scientific as possible under the circumstances. This your chance to help me learn more about this subject, but when it comes to much of the equipment described above I do have a decent working knowledge of its operation if either of us dont understand something or anyone participating the proper response is I dont know. 

Is the above Ok with you ? 

But do you honestly Believe that if something like this was Picked On FLIR that any US Admiral Responsible for a Battle Group of Navel Vessels would not use every form of Sensor and Imaging device at his disposal to investigate a violation of the Air space around his Battle Group?

Next do you know what types of imaging devices they had at their disposal?

 

Edited by Manwon Lender
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bison said:

The response of the governments of the world, if they were aware of an extraterrestrial presence at Earth? I surmise it would be one of denial, as long as they believed that such a stance could be credibly maintained.

To admit such a presence would be to reveal their own inability to control  the actions of a technically superior civilization. The military, in particular, would be loathe to admit that extraterrestrials and/or their automated machines, could come and go as they please, on and around the Earth.

The recent change in attitude, has been one of a shift from denial to an admission that the UAP phenomenon is very real, and worthy of careful and intensive study. This suggests that something has changed in the situation. What that could be, I couldn't say.  It would presumably bear on the problem of no longer being able to maintain the former policy of denial.      

Is there an precendent for those musings?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here an article from the NYT, dated August 1997:

Quote

C.I.A. Admits Government Lied About U.F.O. Sightings

By William J. Broad

Aug. 3, 1997

In the darkest days of the cold war, the military lied to the American public about the true nature of many unidentified flying objects in an effort to hide its growing fleets of spy planes, a Central Intelligence Agency study says.

The deceptions were made in the 1950's and 1960's amid a wave of U.F.O. sightings that alarmed the public and parts of official Washington.

The C.I.A. study says the Air Force knew that most reports by citizens and aviation experts were based on fleeting glimpses of U-2 and SR-71 spy planes, which fly extremely high.

More

I have no doubt  that the TikTok object is nothing else than human made military technology at an advanced but still hidden level, either developed by the US or any other nation. If developed by the US, the video might be an intentional hint to others whats new. If not developed by the US it might be a hint to another nation: we got you!.

All I`ve seen about the flight characteristics of the object does not contain anything that wouldnt be possible based on human technology. IIRC it was fast, so what? Hypersonic speed isnt something thats impossible, it is under development for a long time already and we do not know yet at what stage the military is today, foreign an/or domestic.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UFOs that give every impression of being structured craft have been exhibiting extraordinary flight characteristics for over seven decades. This goes back, at least, to 'foo fighters' in World War II.

These were anomalous craft that outperformed existing military flight technology by wide margins. Allied forces assumed that these were Axis weapons. After the war, it was learned that the Axis assumed that the Allied Forces were responsible for them. If either side had had such super-weapons they surely would have made use of them in that epic battle. Yet, neither side knew of, or could  explain such aircraft.

Please find a link, below, to a paper describing a scientific, and mathematical study of the extraordinary flight characteristics of UFOs/UAPs. This includes the 'Nimitz' incidents. It appears that these  exceed our capabilities to such a degree that no reasonable development of existing technology, even done in secret, should be able to account for them.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm   

Edited by bison
added information, corrected link address
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 5:16 PM, Manwon Lender said:

We can start with the questions, please give you opinion based upon the first question to begin with then we can go through the second question I asked and discuss all the imaging devices other than FLIR that were being used during the encounters along with some Top Secret Documents that I have that have been declassified that you may not have seen.

Fair enough.  Just bear in mind that I simply do not have the time and resources to try to analyse everything, so I will either be guided by you - ie you tell me the best example, or I'll go with the first example given.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:16 PM, Manwon Lender said:

We can also talk about the other aircraft that were in the Air the E-2C Hawkeye, because they were not tracking the objects with only FLIR, they were tracking the objects while Airborne using the AN/APS-145 radar . During the same time frame the USS Princeton was using SPY-1D(V) which is a 3D radar tracking system. I think that's enough to start with. Pick any of those systems but I dont want to discuss FLIR except to review the Videos.

But is there actual radar data or screenshots or anything  in the way of a formal analysis, available for any of these?  To date I've not found anything other than claims that some of the sightings were 'verified'.  That claim isn't of any real use unless we can see how it was verified - for example is seems unclear whether they are simply verfiying the existence of a 'bogie' located where the FLIR systems were picking them up, or whether they actually did have a lock and could measure the flight parameters, eg 'instantaneous acceleration'.

The big problem here is that the DoD report I mentioned above clearly states that they do not have that level of data - this is what they said and I quoted above:

Quote

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated

You'll note they simply refer to acceleration, ie that the objects were moving under their own steam.. and that more rigorous analysis is necessary to look for 'breakthrough' stuff.  That's not sounding at all like there is evidence of anything non-drone-or-experimental-aircraft explainable

I'm not trying to be overly difficult, but you said yourself that you were wanting peer-reviewed analyses...  Perhaps that was lightly tongue in cheek, but I'm not asking for that, and it seems clear that we're not going to find data that shows what you are suggesting, let alone is worthy of peer review.  Me, I just want something that we can actually point a calculator at, rather than just reading claims.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:16 PM, Manwon Lender said:

Last I want to say that anyone cane join into the discussion, but the basic ground rules are simple, this is designed to be informative and a learning process, its not about who is the smartest guy in the room. If anyone participating doesnt know an answer or can't with in reason or supply some form of supporting documentation to back up their comments whenever we are in that part of discussion we can move from or present theoretical situations that we may agree upon, I want to keep this as scientific as possible under the circumstances. This your chance to help me learn more about this subject, but when it comes to much of the equipment described above I do have a decent working knowledge of its operation if either of us dont understand something or anyone participating the proper response is I dont know. 

Is the above Ok with you ?

Yep.  And I reserve the right to call out for Badeskov... :D 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:16 PM, Manwon Lender said:

But do you honestly Believe that if something like this was Picked On FLIR that any US Admiral Responsible for a Battle Group of Navel Vessels would not use every form of Sensor and Imaging device at his disposal to investigate a violation of the Air space around his Battle Group?

Not if he knew that they were testing experimental drone configurations, which could be just surveillance, but could also be attack/stealth/active-radar-jamming systems, possibly even launched from subs. San Clemente Island almost certainly houses a drone-testing facility, and these were mostly during large training / testing events...   

On 11/29/2021 at 5:16 PM, Manwon Lender said:

Next do you know what types of imaging devices they had at their disposal?

Not 100%, but happy to learn!  But all such devices have limits (and issues that must be understood, as well-demonstrated by the FLIR imagery).  When it picks something up at/near those limits, you are very likely not going to be able to get positive IDs.  Also, given the limitations of most out-of-sight/long range radar/FLIR/camera systems, when something 'vanishes' then reappears, you have to be very, very careful about making an assumption that it is the same thing you are now looking at.  Don't forget the concept of a drone can include fleets of identical devices and even spoofing/jamming capabilities.  Flares and chaff are old school...

 

I am working again today so no time  (I must retire soon... ^_^ ), so give me a day or so and I'll be back.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2021 at 3:18 AM, bison said:

UFOs that give every impression of being structured craft have been exhibiting extraordinary flight characteristics for over seven decades. This goes back, at least, to 'foo fighters' in World War II.

These were anomalous craft that outperformed existing military flight technology by wide margins. Allied forces assumed that these were Axis weapons. After the war, it was learned that the Axis assumed that the Allied Forces were responsible for them. If either side had had such super-weapons they surely would have made use of them in that epic battle. Yet, neither side knew of, or could  explain such aircraft.

Please find a link, below, to a paper describing a scientific, and mathematical study of the extraordinary flight characteristics of UFOs/UAPs. This includes the 'Nimitz' incidents. It appears that these  exceed our capabilities to such a degree that no reasonable development of existing technology, even done in secret, should be able to account for them.

https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/10/939/htm   

There is peer review, then there is questionable peer-review and 'ego' journals.  Allow me to question whether this report has been properly reviewed, given the EDITOR of that Journal is Kevin Knuth.  And the chief author of that report is...?  You guessed it.  Kev is also a member of both UAP eXpeditions and the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.  Look them up...

I know that's 'poisoning the well', but I'll get back later and explain where the problems are in that 'report' and specifically call out his first case study.  For now, I'll just quote one part of the paper that should ring alarm bells with anyone familiar how science should (or in this case, doesn't) work:

Quote

We consider a handful of case studies of encounters with UAVs. These encounters were selected from a subset of cases for which there were multiple professional witnesses observing the UAV in multiple modalities (including sight, radar, infrared imaging, etc.). This subset was selected based on the fact that there was sufficient information to estimate kinematic quantities such as speeds and accelerations. Due to the professional standing and expertise of the witnesses, and the fact of both qualitative and quantitative agreement among a significant number of witnesses employing different imaging modalities, it is assumed that the relevant details of the events were not fabricated or embellished. Of course, in most situations, one cannot rule out such possibilities. However, it is unlikely that this would occur with multiple independent witnesses. Assuming that any one of the cases we examine is based on accurate reports, we show that the UAVs exhibit unreasonably high accelerations ranging from 100g to well over 5000g.

Wait, what??????  So this guy admits he has NOT seen and does not have the data, and is instead working from anecdotes!!!!  He never declared that properly in the report...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2021 at 2:48 PM, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

As things stand, right now, without a definitive “the government of X has Y from Z” statement, all we’re left with is “ner ner I know a secret” style comments from everyone involved. 
If you know something, pony up and say it. Bob Lazar is still alive after all, and apparently he broke the biggest secret of them all. All those psychics who accessed Dolce Base are still alive after revealing rhe results of their psychic probing. 
“Exotic technology” - what? From where? Come on, don’t **** on my leg and tell me it’s a puppy.

Yes, the point is they are still alive and still talking, so what they are saying is most likely made up attention grabbing stuff.   If what they claimed was real, they would not be talking (one way or another).   Notice all of them or most of them make money off of these claims.  As for Dulce, all you have to do is go there and you can see how crazy the stories are, even though that area claims to get more UFO activity than any place else, it isn't just Dulce, it is all of New Mexico and guess what, most of the state is military reservation or native reservation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.