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.

 

Luis Elizondo Interview for the 2018 International UFO Congress

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You know the UFO history much better than I do: Was there ever such a good case for a FOIA as the Nimitz or Gimbal videos?
I found these special opportunities, because the DoD does not deny the authenticity. A FOIA should produce more details and official statements.




posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SacredLore
a reply to: Willtell

You know the UFO history much better than I do: Was there ever such a good case for a FOIA as the Nimitz or Gimbal videos?
I found these special opportunities, because the DoD does not deny the authenticity. A FOIA should produce more details and official statements.


There are loads of credible and enthusiastic UFOligist researchers that who live on the FOIA such as the Black Vault.

The problem with any of this is that you can’t even trust researchers completely simply because their in the business of UFOlogy ( writing books, lectures, etc) and they really are no longer objective researchers, particularly the ones who make a living off this information and write books.


Bottom line, one has to depend on ones own research, imo.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   
And in the history of US UFOlogy research the government, through the intelligence agencies, have deceived, lied to, obfuscated and usurped real research since the beginning.


Clearly, this is another government take over of UFO research....This will likely turn into a direct scam or some kind of fiasco that will turn UFO research backwards.

edit on 25-2-2018 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SacredLore
a reply to: gortex

...

As for Tom DeLonge, he has become silent on all social media. In the best case he is busy preparing the next step. In the worst case he was told to shut up.


But he's the CEO of To the Stars so who can be telling him to shut up?

Unless his company is not what it seems to be and is....'under intelligence control".



I also have some hope for the meta-material thing. They have some scientists on board, about time they got busy.


Most of those scientists who are part of DeLonge's team but not actually employed by him are schooled in biological and neurological disciplines. Why would they know about meta-materials?

We already have four current threads about the DeLonge, AATIP subject.

Bigelow UFOs MUFON and DeLonge Road to AATIP

Tom DeLonge Anouncement October 11th 900 AM PST1200 PM EST

I-Team Mystery metal studied in Las Vegas

New York Times The Pentagons Mysterious UFO Program plus DeLonges new websitevideos

So, why when this video has already been posted in another current thread do you feel there was a need to create a whole new thread about it?



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
TTSA is 100% a psyop of some sort, a big one imo! The high level heavy hitters and the eye-opening statements of delonge about the goals,aims of the company, which these big players have attached they're names to.
All combine to make me think something large is being prepp'd and this is the public perception management facade for whatever is afoot.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SacredLore

How could we?

We're just starting to understand how we can manage the nuts and bold UFO's running on antigravity or some other reversed engineered tech we got from whatever more alien something cruising our planet from whatever system that may be.

It might as well be so diverse out there with countless life forms that even other extraterrestrials can't understand but leave it as it is, or are being studied as we are?

It's like if their searching for that one or two people that will come forward with some very interesting information about this that they can move on with that research?

Like " Hey Mr. CIA our science department knows a great deal about the entities but now our research stranded and we need someone that can help us through some minor setbacks so we can move on, can you pitch a national bulletin for us to find us the right guys for the job? "

Mr. Cia: " Sure we say on public record aside from the agency that UFO's are real and need funding for our setback and with any luck, we'll find Mr. Brightside to fill in the gaps, and when he's done he gets a trip far outside our solar system"



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

When you have nothing, or almost nothing, you throw some stuff up against the wall
to see what, if anything sticks.

That the place is full of biologists, not engineers is the telling thing.

That's as close to a smoking gun as we will get.

"Disclosure" might simply be that people THINK that they see "UFOs", but that there
are no "UFOs" there.

That people are seeing UFO's when the I.C. is NOT playing disinfo games, must
be really frustrating to the master puppet masters..

It's like a master magician summoning a rabbit from his hat and getting the wrong
rabbit that he never put there first! It would be unnerving to the magician.

That's probably the 5% of "real disclosure" that people like KG and JA talk about.

Kev



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Why the biologists?

is that a message of some sort?



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Presently, it looks like it will cost $199(US) to view the 2018 Ufo Congress, according to the site. A bit pricey, don't you think, for most of the fans that kept these people in the circuits....?

With great OP posts like this, we get a glimpse of most of what will be covered, but there is so much more we all want to see in the actual event. They are much more impressive when they are (were) free. I understand that they want to make a buck, but this price puts a bad taste on it for me, especially when there seems to be much more incentive to be billed in this venue.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Why the biologists?

is that a message of some sort?


Frankly, it might be as little as KG thinks people who believe in UFOs
are mentally ill, and should be studied.

At an intermediate level, the I.C might want to gather better data
for "MK Ultra mark II", by examining experiencer's brains.

or at the highest possible level, it's possible that certain experiencers have been
a slight bit enhanced due to being radiated or infected, whatever
the mechanism really is, and this is desired to be studied, so that eventually
they can build a "pat price" or "real Uri Geller" in the lab.

Frankly I don't know who who is selling the "core mission" to whom, and how
much BS they are selling "internally". But it's probably somewhere in this
range.

I'd say that it has nothing to do with "UFOs", unless you want to chase down
"the Phenomenon" with a weak butterfly net (drugged up "antenna"
candidate).

Just my semi-educated opinion.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SacredLore



This is sad. It is not the "deep state", "the Cabal", "the CIA spooks" or whatever that is slowing this down. It is the "UFO community" that has exaggerated the ability to be critical and distrustful to unhealthy levels. From Mr. Elizondo's side things look a lot different than what the sceptics are insisting on. Without more dialog we will get nowhere.


I wouldn't say it's the 'UFO commmunity' at fault. Parts of those groups have done their best since the late 1940s. We had NICAP and APRO from the 1950s and even MUFON were quite a serious organisation until the late 1980s. NICAP was a threshold kind of organisation because the board and panels had 'ufologists' alongside high value Intelligence and military men as well as prominent scientists.

My point being that it's hard to sincerely lay responsibility on the UFO community (the good side at least) when they've done what they could with what they had.

I posted a thread in 2010 called 1960 or 2010? 50 Lost Years in Ufology. Nothing much changes and the TTSA haven't added anything more than a slim chapter to ufology's history book.

Thanks for posting the interview and the transcript. It's interesting to see what the players are saying.


a reply to: Guest101



What strikes me as strange: Col. John Alexander had a debate with Stan Friedman in 2011 in which he defended that there was no group in the government investigating UFO’s. Alexander pulled all the strings in his elaborate intelligence network and nobody knew of any group that was involved with the topic. He even wrote a book about it.


Good call. This was one of my first thoughts when TDL's narrative began to bubble up on the internet.


Do you remember Fife Symington? In my mind, he's an exemplar for ufology. When he disparaged the Phoenix Lights he was a hero to skeptics and a plague carrier to the 'aliens are here' guys. Then he said he saw the lights and his status was reversed immediately. Dude told 50% lies so why should anyone trust him? JA and the TTSA guys are in my Fife category.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

My point being that it's hard to sincerely lay responsibility on the UFO community (the good side at least) when they've done what they could with what they had.

I posted a thread in 2010 called 1960 or 2010? 50 Lost Years in Ufology. Nothing much changes and the TTSA haven't added anything more than a slim chapter to ufology's history book.



What people tend to forget: A very compelling UFO case has surfaced in all the turmoil surrounding the TTSA - a case that should be judged separately.

The Nimitz case contains a lot of elements that I my opinion make it one of the best in UFO history:

1. Multiple eye witnesses, both pilots, one very experienced.
2. Eye witnesses who went public.
3. Having observed a solid looking UFO without any visible means of lift or propulsion.
4. Observations for several minutes and from several angles/airplanes on a bright and sunny day.
5. Of the UFO performing way beyond the envelope of conventional aircraft and responding to their presence.
6. Radar, IR, and visual instrument recordings that corroborate with these eye witness reports on the object’s location and the object’s appearance.
7. Release of video material through official channels that clearly shows the reported shape of the object (see below for a unique overlay of the IR and TV images).

People tend to brush it all off as just another case on the pile, but I am still trying to find another case in UFO history with such a strong combination of corroborating elements. Even the best cases lack one or more of the elements listed above.

It’s a shame that such a good case tends to be obscured by all the fuzz surrounding the launch of TTSA.

Remember, just one compelling meteorite case was sufficient to turn the tide on the acceptance of meteorites by the scientific community. Before that, people who claimed they saw rocks falling from the sky were treated much the same as UFO witnesses today...


edit on 27-2-2018 by Guest101 because: Made the list a little longer ;



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 04:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Guest101

It's always good to see someone getting enthused by decent UFO reports.


Minot '68 is a pretty strong report and it generated all the noise and interest of a wren cheeping in a forest.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Guest101

Minot '68 is a pretty strong report...


Minot '68 is not as strong as the Nimitz case:
1. Only the co-pilot saw what appeared to be a solid object, the rest of the witnesses only saw lights.
2. Nobody saw this solid object performing manoeuvres, the object was sitting on the floor. The only manoeuvres seen were made by lights.
3. No video or photographs were made of the object(s).

At first I also thought of the Nimitz case as ‘one more for the record’, but then I started looking for comparable cases and found none that ticked as many boxes.
Sure there is always more to ask for, but the Nimitz case really is one of the best cases around.


originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Guest101

...and it generated all the noise and interest of a wren cheeping in a forest.


What helped in the final acceptance of meteorites was the realization that space may not be as empty as once thought, so timing is also a big factor.
With all the exoplanets discovered and the scientific debate about warp drives, we may not be as hard to reach as once thought.

Even UFO sceptic Neil DeGrasse Tyson recently stated that the Nimitz UFO could be extra-terrestrial:

Watch from 04:33:


“Big news was that the Pentagon was tracking UFO’s”
“That has a way better chance of being aliens than this thing [the Umuamua asteroid] because those objects were doing things that were not gravitational [i.e. they were not moved by gravitational forces alone].”




posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
The best cases are always "appeared to be a solid object".

but there are cases where 2 people stand next to each other,
and one person is "touching the solid object" and the other
person doesn't see anything at all, or sees a bicycle say.

We've got to get beyond "appears to be solid", but isn't.

That's why all the biologists working for TTSA.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky





It is not the "deep state", "the Cabal", "the CIA spooks" or whatever that is slowing this down. It is the "UFO community" that has exaggerated the ability to be critical and distrustful to unhealthy levels.


I wondered what he was talking about with that statement.
I think in this statement he seems to tell us were his loyalties lay



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Kandinsky





It is not the "deep state", "the Cabal", "the CIA spooks" or whatever that is slowing this down. It is the "UFO community" that has exaggerated the ability to be critical and distrustful to unhealthy levels.


I wondered what he was talking about with that statement.
I think in this statement he seems to tell us were his loyalties lay




The problem is, he's just telling what we already know using different and key words.

We know someone doesn't want us to know. The whom is the question...

Perhaps it's the aliens itself that wants to stay hidden and are spreading misinformation. I stopped doubting anything a long time ago.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell



I wondered what he was talking about with that statement. I think in this statement he seems to tell us were his loyalties lay


It's vague enough to invite us to apply meaning. Bearing in mind his professional background, what other view would we expect him to have? We all seem to interpret 'the phenomenon' according to our personal reference points.


a reply to: KellyPrettyBear



We've got to get beyond "appears to be solid", but isn't.


Sure we do. You and I have considered the context at length and found it intriguing. Nevertheless, I find it premature to be dismissive of the possibility that some reports may be describing 'solid' objects.



a reply to: Guest101

Well, we all have our favourite cases that interest us the most so I won't quibble with you. I try to avoid haggling over which case is the better one.




What helped in the final acceptance of meteorites was the realization that space may not be as empty as once thought, so timing is also a big factor.


I'm aware of the history. My favourite quote on the subject came from Charles Fort who wrote:


Luminous fleas on a vast black dog—in popular impressions, there is no realization of the extent to which this solar system is flea-bitten.


Personally, I don't think the existence of meteorites takes us very far in arguing that reported objects have extraterrestrial origins. It's still a useful example to encourage people to be aware of their cultural and historical contexts.



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

It's a big universe, and both humans and the universe are perverse.

So certainly.. something solid could be involved.

But that said.. we have lots of anecdotal evidence that oftentimes what appears
solid is NOT. Or is at most temporarily solid.

It's impossible to put a number to it.. but it wouldn't surprise me if 95%
plus of real-ish stuff is purely mental or some form of energy which also
messes with our minds.

But the preponderance of the (flimsy) evidence points to nothing particularly
"solid", so it's good to keep that in mind as a strong possibility.

Kev



posted on Feb, 27 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear



It's impossible to put a number to it.. but it wouldn't surprise me if 95%
plus of real-ish stuff is purely mental or some form of energy which also
messes with our minds.


I wouldn't be surprised either, but none of us know enough to rule things out. The reported 'solid objects' could be projections from actual solid objects. Russian dolls or turtles all the way down.


...or some reported solid objects were solid objects. Who knows?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join