It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bigelow, UFOs, MUFON and ‘DeLonge’ Road to AATIP

page: 15
133
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
this movie is out on stream sites . Watched yesterday




posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Kevin2024

"Then no mater what, we can only disbelieve anything inconvenient that actually leaked."

Not necessarily (ref: the Snowden case)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Hey GUT or TheTruthRocks

Do we know if Elizondo or Mellon still hold their top secret clearances with the DoD?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: The GUT

Hey GUT or TheTruthRocks

Do we know if Elizondo or Mellon still hold their top secret clearances with the DoD?


Great question that would be purty durn illuminating if they do. Puthoff I wonder about too.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

"...if they do have some kind of official approval it's my opinion that it has more to do with national security objectives and not UFOs."

Spot on

Additionally, truckloads of government of funding are passed through the "national security" curtain to prevent it from being followed via statutory disclosure means, e.g., FOIA, etc. There is a LOT of taxpayer money spent on "national security" that actually goes to pet projects (congresspersons make many closed-door deals) that have nothing to do with national security, and everything to do with making more money for the given state(s), congresspersons and their friends.

The DoD is expert at following money used to finance terrorist activities because it has had years and years of practice laundering its own funding.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I think there’s a consensus here about AATIP and TTS

What I see is a series of stories they have built

I have no problem with TDL and his group pursuing what they are doing and maybe just maybe this is a conduit by some secret groups to tell us another story or release something. However, frankly I doubt they will reveal anything of substance.

TDL’s story, we all know, the UFO interested rock star giving up his career to become an alien hunter

The disgruntled insider security guy Elizondo quitting to pursue the elusive truth of UFOs.

But we all know here, years of knowledge of the IC running weird operations like this as GUTs link shows us, and not really producing anything of much substance.



The Kimball, Emenegger, Bennewitz, and Howe affairs were just the beginning of excursions into the world of UFO ephemera by federal employees. In the 1990’s the feds seemed determined to insert their agenda into the nascent internet, where UFOlogists were now trading “evidence” around the world at lightening speed. Their newest civilian contact became a soft-spoken computer analyst who was determined to use the new technology to get to “the www.realityuncovered.net...


Its as if the stories and the dangling something at certain people in the UFO community only to always pull back and say, never mind, over and over is some kind of INTELLEGENCE OPERATION IN ITSELF

And that operation seems to simply be a disinformation junket by the government.

What this TTS op may be is a public operation, whereas in the past the government secret boys used a few interested people with these UFO information danglings…


Folks, now, there doing it again but on a public level.

Is there any sinister intent in this is the question?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


Is there any sinister intent in this is the question?


This is the essential question of the entire subject. Very succinct rundown there as well, Will.

Do these players have nefarious motivations? The very fact that what they're doing is disingenuous lends some weight to the idea that they are up to no good.

Perhaps they're just running their little snake oil carts and have chosen hitch up the UFO horse.

They can't be making much money from it, could it serve to obfuscate actual technology? They could be hiding money with it, I suppose; pet projects as have been mentioned.

If they are up to no good, then what would that look like?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
The "evidence" Lou Elizondo claims to have seen is a single report he found in a classified records system before he retired. That report was created as a joke, and Lou thought it was genuine reporting.

Also keep in mind that his position in the U.S. DoD's Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP) had nothing to do with the study of so-called alien technology. It was focused on what our adversaries were cooking up and how we could detect, identify, and counter the threats. Nothing more.

Lou and his pals are seeing dollar signs. They're charging $$ for speaking engagements and selling hats and tee shirts. They will make a lot of money before this blows over.

That is the truth.

Also can you elaborate on the "joke report" that you say Elizondo tee'd off on? Thanks!!


TheTruthRocks / The GUT

Is this the report you are referring to?

I posted the following on the other TTS post and had a some EXCELLENT personal insight replied by member Cosmania. I’ll post that too. Any opinion or insight is appreciated.

“ This Nimitz pilot report is interesting.

coi.tothestarsacademy.com...


It was written 4 months ago. Why? And who directed the generation of this report 14 years after the incident? The author and agency are redacted. ( also interesting is there is a line item to track “ expenditures” which is also redacted.

My guess is this is an official AATIP report. Specifically directed and possibly conducted by Elizondo himself before his resignation from the AATIP. Elizondo knowing that this incident would be one of the first rolled out for TTS.

But was there no investigation and report generated by AATIP in the 14+ years before this? Seems strange that this incident is front and center with The December roll out of info but it wasn’t investigated and reported previously. Or is there additional report(s) to follow?


Also interesting is the “ female controller from the USS Princeton that re-vectored the 2 fighters”.
She remained unidentified. But inquired what weapons either fighter had on board. When the pilots stated they were low on fuel she stearnly repeated her commands - primarily saying ‘too bad- go where I am telling you to go!’

She potentially had more information on the situation or possibly was being directed by higher ups whom had more information. That shows that a deeper more integrated DOD reaction and investigation of UAP. The report to me reveals the immediacy and importance that seems to be coming from a higher authority. There is disregard for adequate fuel levels of the fighters and inquiry about onboard weapons capacity hinting at the very least of encountering a hostile subject. Both issues are disregarded with what looks like a push to gain intelligence on the unknown subject with deregard of safety protocols. ( maybe a more experienced person can shed light on their situation and did they have to blatantly disregard safety protocols? )

I am all for the AATIP and TTS to continue to try to establish themselves but I feel the real pertinent information on the subject has been collected , analyzed, and archived for a long time behind the scenes by high level DOD whom quietly continue to gather intel on incidents exactely like the Nimitz and the mysterious female controller and whom ever directed her to direct the two fighters to investigate is a good example of that.


edit on 10-1-2018 by Paddyofurniture because: Grammar

edit on 10-1-2018 by Paddyofurniture because: Grammar



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You know very well it's more than snake oil.

The people directly affiliated with this should be suspect, add to that the "shadow advisors" is grounds to tuck tail and run.


edit on 10-1-2018 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2018 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Continued.....

Cosmania replied

“The pilot of the aircraft is the ultimate decision maker. If low on fuel the pilot has the authority to disregard the female or male controller”.



originally posted by: Paddyofurniture

originally posted by: Hyperboles
a reply to: Paddyofurniture

The pilot of the aircraft is the ultimate decision maker. If low on fuel the pilot has the authority to disregard the female or male controller



Thank you. I figured that the case.

Though As with anything at the level of complexity of military aerial platforms running real life operations I’m sure there can be a number protocols in place ( percentage of fuel left vs distance back to carrier vs weather conditions etc.) the report doesn’t go into more detail of what the female controller responded when the pilot stated the issue of low fuel other than they were being directed to continue.

My hopes are the AATIP asked these types of questions in their reporting. Like, in-depth questioning of this specific topic. I’m just a mook off the street but I would pursue a line of questioning like

1) How specifically did the female controller respond when you replied to her that low fuel issues were an issue?
2) at that point before you were re-vectored how long before you had to return to the carrier safely?
3) what exact level of fuel did you need to return safely? Did you encroach / exceed those safety fuel levels
4) why does an unidentified controller from an entirely different operation have authority to have you drop what you are doing and re-vector to an unknown operation?
5) obviously the controller her self likely didn’t have the ultimate authority. The ranking officer (whom ever that was) that was standing next to her directing her to direct the pilots had the ultimate authority. Do you know who that was? Did the controller refer to that ranking officer? What / whom made you “nervous” about this re-vectoring as he stated - do you have educated opinion as to whom was really directing this re-vectoring and investigation op?

Obviously difficult questions that likely a Commanding Navy pilot wouldn’t want to answer and even in asking the questions may just shut down and stop the inquiry/ reporting. But hopefully the AATIP and Elizondo felt comfortable in their support by Reid and Co. to ask the hard questions without repercussions



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate


You know very well it's more than shake oil.


Yeah, I do.

These clowns, though. What they're burbling on about in public serves not the cause of truth.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Continued......


originally posted by: cosmania
PaddyO,

These are great questions and the level of research here is great. Allow me to give my perspective on this.
***disclaimer*** I wasn't there, but I have a few hours of Navy flight time and have worked with CV controllers, small boy controllers and Joint Controllers.

1) In this case, after the Aircrew informs the controller that they are tight on gas, I would expect something along the lines of "Roger that, I know you're tight on gas, go do this." In most cases, when vectored to something in that situation, the aircrew might ask for some considerations to help them, like getting some gas airborne, or gettting priority landing (I've had both).
2) This is likely just their recovery time which usually has about 15 minutes of slop in it.
3) It's possible to go low, but when you're heading back, you need to tell the ship that. They will either land you first, or get some fuel airborne.
4) This is the important question. When airborne, the controller is essentially the voice of God. Sometimes the controller can be an E2 or an AWACS or a Ground controller, but because of the situation of the aircraft, they can't aggregrate all the battlespace intel that available. The controller can get info from internal Intel networks, ELINT from other assets, intel from other aircraft, etc. Whenever I've been retasked airborne, the aircrew has questions, but usually not the total info. In general, if the controller has told you to get retasked, it did NOT come from the controller, it typically would come from someone fairly high up. I'm guessing at least an O-5, likely higher.
5) This info would only come after you've landed and have debriefed in CVIC. Perhaps even somewhere else with someone else. In most cases, the information about the battlespace goes through your own squadron Intel officer, who gets everything relayed to them. But the squadron intel officer is not usually very high ranking, maybe an O-3, so I'm guessing that CDR Fravor went to the Carrier Intel Officer to understand what happened. This person is typically an O-5. So, while airborne, the aircrew know that someone who is responsible for a lot of assets, has just revectored you. The biggest responsibility that the aircrew have is to relay whatever info they gather, and the constantly update the controller about their fuel state/aircraft state.

It happens rarely, but the idea of being on "government time" was a real world topic that we briefed. It doesn't occur often, and is kind of a throw back to when pilots would dive bomb, but the idea is as follows: When you are in a certain situation, being ordered/directed to an objective, there are times when your safety takes a lower priority than mission accomplishment. When A-6 pilots would roll in to drop their bombs, after travelling hundreds of miles, even if they were being shot at, they had to track that target and deploy their bombs, even if they were getting all torn up. That's "government time."

On rare occasions, you get the controllers telling you to do something and there might be pauses in the radio transmissions or a certain tone by the controller, and you know that you are approaching government time.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Rosinitiate


You know very well it's more than shake oil.


Yeah, I do.

These clowns, though. What they're burbling on about in public serves not the cause of truth.


And I wouldn't expect them to. Who cares what the right hand is doing? But what's the left hand going on about?




"For a program of gradual disclosure instead of immediate release.


Curious that his interactions with bonafide government insiders was validated via WikiLeaks via John Podesta emails should be very eye opening, yet everyone sees all these topics in their own vacuum.

That's why it's so effective.

edit on 10-1-2018 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

3 words: fake alien invasion. Another entity claiming that our secret space marine drones are the new old alien threat to worry about? We'll see how that plays out.

Anyway. What a ride of a read, folks! With new old members breaking their vow of silence and all that.

3 cheers!



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: Kevin2024

"Then no mater what, we can only disbelieve anything inconvenient that actually leaked."

Not necessarily (ref: the Snowden case)


That was the obvious response of course.

One example.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kevin2024

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: Kevin2024

"Then no mater what, we can only disbelieve anything inconvenient that actually leaked."

Not necessarily (ref: the Snowden case)


That was the obvious response of course.

One example.


Snowden. Another Psyop.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: The GUT

Hey GUT or TheTruthRocks

Do we know if Elizondo or Mellon still hold their top secret clearances with the DoD?


Great question that would be purty durn illuminating if they do. Puthoff I wonder about too.


That's a great question.

AFIK, Puthoff to this very day is involved with RV.

If that doesn't invalidate a security clearance, then that would be a tacit approval
of that activity as being acceptable and not a black mark on one's suitability to
hold a clearance.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Kevin2024

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: Kevin2024

"Then no mater what, we can only disbelieve anything inconvenient that actually leaked."

Not necessarily (ref: the Snowden case)


That was the obvious response of course.

One example.


Snowden. Another Psyop.


Explain your thinking please.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Rosinitiate


You know very well it's more than shake oil.


Yeah, I do.

These clowns, though. What they're burbling on about in public serves not the cause of truth.


Lol...the LEFT hand Rosinitiate said. How appropriate.

The thing that gets me is that even if there's some national security objective here, it still doesn't appear that we're dealing with good trustworthy peeps.

Consider what was done to Paul Bennewitz by Doty and AFOSI. By all accounts, he was a true patriotic American. There was no need to drive him over the edge it seems. A simple, "Paul, this is a national security issue and we need you to back away" would've in all likelihood done the trick. Even besides his patriotism his business depended on government contracts. So why drive him crazy?

It appears folk were also done wrong during the Serpo hoax on a personal level; threats, slander, stalking, fake legal hassles, etc. Lying to and spreading disinfo amongst those of us in the ufology community is more negligible. We've seen how "crazy" they consider a large portion of the UFO community in the Gus Russo article. The same sociopathic reasoning was used as justification for much of the MK-ULTRA projects in deciding some "populations" were acceptable subjects because they were deemed "less than": Prisoners, mental patients, etc. Not that they stopped there...anyone and everyone was expendable in their eyes when it came down to it.

We went WAY off course with The National Security act of 1947...and saucers entered the modern era and public consciousness at the same time. Probably NOT coincidence.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kevin2024

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

originally posted by: Kevin2024

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
a reply to: Kevin2024

"Then no mater what, we can only disbelieve anything inconvenient that actually leaked."

Not necessarily (ref: the Snowden case)


That was the obvious response of course.

One example.


Snowden. Another Psyop.


Explain your thinking please.


A man escapes the states to leak an explosive story that our government has the tech to monitor us in ways only spoken of in conspiracy circles. Less than twelve months later Congress passes retroactive legislation to make it legal to do so.

Not connected at all.
edit on 10-1-2018 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
133
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join