The Pentagon Finally Admits It Investigates UFOs

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#61
The two vids look similar, but they are also a bit different. I really think these folks need to provide something better than what they have to the public; many are going to require "extraordinary evidence" and some will need to see them themselves, especially in the age of modern technology. The military needs to come clean as Podesta recently and so many others in the past have demanded.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#63
What if they don't have any better evidence?
They may not have any they can share. They are always having to be very careful about what they say. There were hundreds of these recent encounters with visuals on the objects, too. They sound just like the old stuff (flattened top shapes, etc.) They are just unable to get any other videos or materials released. Just what you'd expect from folks who have peeled off these programs at their own risk. Bigelow likely has evidence, and I'm sure General McCasland could shed some light on things. I'm pretty sure decades of pilots and other folks who have seen these things close up have also generated films and other data; the government confiscates them, and attempts to embarrass or ridicule folks, while behind the scenes as Hillenkoetter suggested long ago, they are very concerned. I am not concerned; more will come out eventually.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#64
What if they don't have any better evidence?
Personally I'm not worried in the least about lack of indisputable evidence at this point (just very annoyed); I "know" they are real, having seen them myself and read historical accounts that also tally with my experience and others' experiences; hardcore skeptics have been turned by close-enough encounters --they known they are real; anything else with those characteristics, if not alien, is something even stranger... The reports from pilots today and past and other miltary and civilian individuals are strikingly similar, so I am pretty sure what we are having is more of the same. I don't even really feel the need to argue the existence of UFOs anymore (i actually get tired of thinking about them with a little high strangeness PTSD); I am just passing along information as a courtesy for those who haven't seen UFOs or read about them, but have an interest. I desperately want intelligent folks to see them for themselves if at all possible, before they die.

I have come to two disturbing conclusions, though:
1. Some people will NEVER believe --even if one crashed on the White House. Would be false flag or some conspiracy.
2. We could be destroyed by an alien attack before we even agreed they were here. We would stand NO chance...
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#65
I've seen plenty of UFOs, including a classic 'saucer', but they've all been resolved into IFOs before the end of the sighting. UFOs are just IFOs that you don't have enough information, or enough time, to identify.
If you were able to see your own sighting from another angle, or a closer distance, you would probably be able to identify it yourself.
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#66
2. We could be destroyed by an alien attack before we even agreed they were here. We would stand NO chance...
This is probably, but not necessarily, true. Travelling from star to star is a very high-energy, expensive business; it is entirely possible that by the time an alien ship reaches our system, it has almost completely expended its resources and reduced in size to a minimal payload. Think of the Apollo missions; a ship as high as two statues of Liberty was reduced to something the size of a Volkswagen when it returned to Earth. Any group of travellers that has just arrived in our system might need our help much more than we need them.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#68
Something like that, yes. Certainly, if we attempted to use known technology to travel to the nearest stars, we would arrive after decades of travel, in a tiny command module that would barely have enough fuel to decelerate. We wouldn't have enough power left over to destroy one city, let alone a planet-sized civilisation.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
35,794
Likes
21,866
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
#69
Something like that, yes. Certainly, if we attempted to use known technology to travel to the nearest stars, we would arrive after decades of travel, in a tiny command module that would barely have enough fuel to decelerate. We wouldn't have enough power left over to destroy one city, let alone a planet-sized civilisation.
That rather assumes the use of the same technology that we currently have.
Nobody's going to make a journey to the stars with our current level of technology.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#70
If you were able to see your own sighting from another angle, or a closer distance, you would probably be able to identify it yourself.
I don't think there is any chance of that. Other folks who have seen them closer up or have engaged them = same thing.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#71
No-one has engaged them. All the tales of Close Encounters are just that, tales.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#72
That rather assumes the use of the same technology that we currently have.
Nobody's going to make a journey to the stars with our current level of technology.
We are at least two hundred years away from even attempting a manned interstellar voyage, even using designs we can currently envisage. The most detailed design for an interstellar ship using forseeable technology, Project Daedalus, requires that we establish deuterium mines in the atmosphere of our local gas giants just to obtain enough fuel.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#73
No-one has engaged them. All the tales of Close Encounters are just that, tales.
There have been plenty of attempted intercepts with visuals; going far back --we just can't outperform the objects. Sometimes they have also simultaneously been seen by folks on the ground, radars, etc. Redmond, Iran come to mind but there are many, many others.
https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/docu...classified-documents/ufo/us_gov_iran_case.pdf

https://www.fold3.com/image/6958474
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#74
The Tehran case was a misperception of Jupiter, compounded by faulty equipment on the F-4 Phantom jet. There may even have been an actual intruder involved (see below). Of course, even if this was an encounter with aliens, rather than celestial bodies, the 'planes never got anywhere near their target.

I've analysed the various versions of the report elsewhere, and noted that there are several discrepancies; but I'm happy to accept the testimony of Lt Parviz Jafari as being slightly more reliable than the earliest reports, which is a reversal of my normal practice. Jafari has at least been consistent and I have no reason to think he is misremembering.

To me the most interesting part of the event happened right at the end, and seems to indicate that there is a mundane explanation for some of the details.
Beeper
Sixth was the beeping transponder located by Jafari and the helicopter crew the next day, apparent physical evidence of intelligent technology. And so it probably was. Col. Mooy noted that the beeping transponder appeared to be from an American C-141. These large transport aircraft carried such transponders designed to be released in the event of a crash, but they'd been having problems with the beepers being ejected simply by turbulence over the mountains just north of Tehran.
What was an American transponder doing in the middle of a supposed alien encounter? This makes no sense - unless the encounter was at least partly caused by an unknown but perfectly mundane aircraft in some sort of difficulty. At the time, Iran was an ally of the US, and was using mostly American equipment; but they don't seem to have been managing or maintaining these resources very well.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#75
That's certainly an interesting twist on the case! Could be. Do you accept any of the photographic evidence as genuinely anomalous, such as the Trent photos or Heflin photos, Nellis footage is US test ?
 
Last edited:

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#78
A spherical object with a green afterburner sounds a lot like a bolide to me. Green is a common colour associated with meteors because of one of the excited states of oxygen.
https://leonid.arc.nasa.gov/meteor.html
Maybe:
'According to Iranian sources, the CIA’s intelligence drones displayed astonishing flight characteristics, including an ability to fly outside the atmosphere, attain a maximum cruise speed of Mach 10, and a minimum speed of zero, with the ability to hover over the target. Finally, these drones used powerful ECM that could jam enemy radars using very high levels of magnetic energy, disrupting navigation systems. '
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#79
Here are photos purportedly showing this debris. It all looks like scrap, industrial waste and slag to me. The exact processes used to create these offcuts and waste material could be quite challenging to identify, but I have little doubt that it was made on Earth by humans. The material was sent to Art Bell anonymously, which is where the 'chain of custody' ends, assuming this is the same material.

EAWHx4ZU4AAfFQ-.jpg bild1-1.jpg
aad0638db5bd2a243a654ddeb3dda643.jpg
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#80
Here are photos purportedly showing this debris. It all looks like scrap, industrial waste and slag to me. The exact processes used to create these offcuts and waste material could be quite challenging to identify, but I have little doubt that it was made on Earth by humans. The material was sent to Art Bell anonymously, which is where the 'chain of custody' ends, assuming this is the same material.

View attachment 19376 View attachment 19377
View attachment 19375
There is no real way to know just by looking at it. From what I've read, they aren't absolutely claiming an ET source for it they are just trying to figure out what it is. It might indeed be terrestrial. I don't know why everything coming from UFOs has to be so extraordinary --some of it might not be. Some of it might be the byproduct of some anomalous process we are unfamiliar with. I suspect, since TTSA wouldn't be allowed to bring out some top secret sample or something in the custody of the private sector, that they are just collecting weird stuff from the public and other UFO researchers (Linda Moulton Howe in this case, iirc.) and hoping that they are also anomalous.
To your point, this object was going around for a while with a UFO story (hoax) and it was terrestrial --it just looks weird:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...e-sky-that-UFO-hunters-say-is-proof-of-aliens
Supposedly in this slide photo montage, there is only one piece with anomalous characteristics and it isn't the one above, and Elizondo won't reveal which one:
https://silvarecord.com/2019/03/17/...etamaterials-ufo-program-alive-well-elizondo/
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#82
There are contradictions here; the 'angel hair' collected from Florence in 1954 did not 'sublimate', it was destroyed during testing, and yielded some (frankly absurd) results, probably as a result of the shortcomings of 1950's analysis. Other angel hair has been tested and found to be spiderweb. A few samples seem to have disappeared somehow, once again, probably due to errors in the collection or storage process. An interesting Fortean phenomenon, but nothing to do with the Pentagon or aliens.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#83
There are contradictions here; the 'angel hair' collected from Florence in 1954 did not 'sublimate', it was destroyed during testing, and yielded some (frankly absurd) results, probably as a result of the shortcomings of 1950's analysis. Other angel hair has been tested and found to be spiderweb. A few samples seem to have disappeared somehow, once again, probably due to errors in the collection or storage process. An interesting Fortean phenomenon, but nothing to do with the Pentagon or aliens.
It's possible that some of the Florence material did sublimate and that was the remainder. I think the vast majority of falls of "angel hair" are spiderwebs. It just happens that UFOs also sometimes shed, excrete, or vent material too. Even the Sternenschiff ejected some scintillating material or gas. I think it's rarely seen in UFO cases, but sometimes it happens, and it's rarer still to collect it. There was a 19th century case of "Meteoritic Floss" I ran across; metallic sheets up to 20 feet across and apparently even tube <edit> (rope) shapes, all metallic or appearing to be. The pieces were draped over trees and fences, and fell after clusters of lights were seen high in the sky. Hard to say about that one.
 
Last edited:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#84
I was in Wold Newton today; this small Yorkshire town was the location of a meteor fall in 1793, which was observed and recovered. The prevailing theory at the time was that meteors were Earth-based matter, raised up to the skies in some fashion, like hailstones. The Wold Newton meteor was taken to London, examined and exhibited, and became an important part of the increasing burden of evidence that meteors come from outer space.

Note the difference between this evidence, and the treatment of it, and the so-called metamaterials of today. No-one covered anything up, no-one kept it in a cupboard for years; anyone who wanted to examine the Wold Newton stone could do so, provided they had the necessary resources. That is how to change a paradigm.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#86
Okay, here's one of the contentious e-mails from Elizondo
From: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)
Sent Thursday, August 17, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Russo, Michael C CIV WHS ESD (US)
Subject FW: ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 1

Attachments: GoFast.wmv

—Original Message—
From: Elizondo, Luis D CIV (US)
Sent: Wednesday, August 9,2017 4:20 PM
To: WHS Pentagon ESD Mailbox DOPSR cwhs.nentatmn <»<;H mhv Hrmcr/mmaii cmii ^ J K
Cc: (b)(6)
Subject: ATTN: Russo - DOPSR Request-Part 1

Greetings Michael and thank you once again for your assistance-One more e-mail to follow (three in total due to sizelimitations).
Per your guidance, please find the attached three .mpg files for your review. Please note, although the files are UNCLASSIFIED, they are being sent via SIPR in the spirit of extra precaution. No locational data is provided in any of the files and therefore there should be no classification issues.
STRATEGIC ISSUE: Unmanned aerial vehicles (balloons, commercial UAVs, private drones such as quadcopters, etc) continue to pose a potential threat to DoD facilities, equipment, and location. Army, Navy, and Air Force have all acknowledged the potential threat by UAS' to DoD equities but no single UNCLASSIFIED repository exists to share this information across all stakeholders.
PURPOSE: Our collective purpose is to eventually establish an UNCLASSIFIED database or "Community of Interest" of related signature data to be accessible by stakeholders such as DIA, the Navy, Defense Industry partners, and perhaps even State, Local & Tribal authorities to catalog and identify specific UAS threats to national security and/or DoD equities. By creating a virtual library to catalog and analyze each event, our hope will be to better understand the capabilities, and ultimately vulnerabilities of these systems.
Please let me know if I can assist any further with this request.
Sincerest Regards,

Lue
See the problem? In this email to Michael Russo, Elizondo mentions a shed-load of mundane phenomena that might cause potential threats (bolding mine). He does not mention that he is going to release these (apparently mundane) videos and spin them to pretend that they show alien craft with unusual performance characteristics. His denial does not address this.
 
Last edited:

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#87
They wouldn;t get anywhere by stating that they have alien devices buzzing our military. Re-read Elizondo's statement:



https://www.coasttocoastam.com/article/exclusive-luis-elizondo-statement

Did the Dept. of Defense authorize the release of three purported UFO videos in 2017 and 2018? That question has largely been settled but continues to generate questions among some researchers.

This week, in response to a FOIA request, the Pentagon released additional information about the email communications between the requester Luis Elizondo (pictured) and the DOD. After reading some of the hostile comments posted on social media,

George Knapp reached out to Lue Elizondo for further comment. Elizondo sent this statement:

"Once again, this is yet another attempt by a few antagonists to bend facts around their false narrative. What the emails actually prove is as follows:

1) I did indeed work in AATIP

2) I was in a Senior position

3) The videos were coordinated for release the proper way and the decision was a group decision

4) The Pentagon and not Luis Elizondo approved release

As for the notion by the conspiracy theorist that some how I released the videos under false pretenses is further negated by the following:

A) At the time of the request, AATIP was still a small and sensitive program that I was not at liberty to discuss among a broader audience. As such, I used the term UAS as a general phrase that people could understand without specifically highlighting UAPs.

B) That individuals who were also part of the AATIP and UAP effort and who ultimately authorized the release were CCd on all the emails so those who needed to know, absolutely knew. This is the "OCA" or better known as the Original Classification Authority. This is evident by the fact that the Pentagon chose to redact their names, namely because they are still part of the effort and work at the Pentagon.

C) It was the Pentagon and not me who believed releasing the videos to a broader audience would be easier. One can read my emails to see I wanted to keep the videos protected but they felt releasing them at the unrestricted level would be easier and more efficient.

D) The reason why it reads "Not Applicable" under the section "PUBLICATION" is because last I checked you can't "publish a video" you "release a video". As such, I did not want to confuse DOPSR by indicating I wanted to publish the videos...we wanted to release them instead. Proper English grammar.

---Luis Elizondo

It's a miracle that any videos were released at all.
And:
https://nypost.com/2019/05/22/the-pentagon-finally-admits-it-investigates-ufos/
And you are missing the forest for the trees; they had hundreds of encounters just recently; I am sure data was collected from those incidents too. Not to be released.
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,221
Likes
1,167
Points
169
#88
I do not believe they had hundreds of encounters recently. Very little evidence has emerged from these hundreds of encounters; there may have been several, but it has grown in the telling. No doubt, if all the evidence were available, these recent encounters would be solvable, just as the GIMBAL movie can be interpreted as a mundane craft.
 

feinman

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
879
Likes
282
Points
69
#89
it's because the videos are ambiguous that they were released. What about all of the other intercept footage over the decades? What about the rest of the Mainbrace photos? Why would the Navy have their hand forced by angry pilots about reporting UFOs? Why has this gone on for decades?
 
Top