Beyond Bigelow & BAASS, After AATIP and on To the Stars...

Pandolfi is known as a prankster and a spreader of disinformation

a reply to: Willtell

My exact sentiment Willtell..... definetly NOT biggest UFO leak of the century.....

a reply to: coursecatalog

I feel ya' but I'd say not believing we have a crashed craft still leaves open the possibility we have occasional contact with a non-human intelligence. That's where I'm at. Fishing with Moore...I could dig that!

I don’t say this isn’t true but it’s just not as awesome as Dolan said.
Dolan has in the past I think been kind of too early on something. I think some kind of Mexican event?
When I first heard him claim…disclosure of the century…my goodness, I was thinking apocalypse…!

And this story when you check it out closely…isnt all together
Just think about it.
Those 3 SAP guys may have been exaggerating.
And as I mentioned Wilson was in the CIA in 1997 and did some other job I think for the Joint Chiefs
This SAP program was none of his business in 1997.
Maybe it was when he was the head of the DIA.

a reply to: Willtell

I don't honestly know what happened to Dolan. Schooled in Cold War history he then wrote two great books on UFOs and the National Security State. He was an articulate grounded speaker with a sharp, keen mind. Now I am not saying he still doesn't have that skill set. But he never got writing the third book of his series. Which would have brought us up to date over the last two decades. I don't know if he ever will now.

Instead he seems to have taken the route many other personalities have chosen as a talking head and heading towards more fringe areas. I notice his new missus has not only wooed him but seem to have woo-wooed him too.

But this document? Well people got excited about the MJ12 papers many moons ago. We've been poisoned by their fairytales so many times before haven't we? I don't know where I read it. But I do recall someone in a UFO book saying that you can often find a 4 star general who will talk all day about aliens and crashed UFO technology but as soon as you ask about the latest military hardware he shuts up immediately. So I don't share Dolan's enthusiasm either.

a reply to: mirageman

I did watch. Dolan belongs with linda in lindawooland.


Sorry, this whole recent situation is a farce.

And this one really just runs and runs.....

Blackvault has now published two further statements from the Pentagon dated 30/05/2019



View in full

In an effort to cover all bases, and to address the spin, I went back to the Pentagon for comment. I asked, based on the popular (and erroneous) belief that TTSA and/or the NY Times would somehow be authorized to publish those videos given the “industry partner” language listed on the DD Form 1910.

The Pentagon has made it clear, it would not. They also specifically name TTSA and the NY Times in their statement, thus taking another step in making this crystal clear for those who are still arguing the opposite, but can not offer any proof to the contrary.

When asked for comment from one of the authors of the NY Times story, Mr. Ralph Blumenthal stated, “I don’t know what anyone is saying Leslie said but our story said the videos were released by AATIP and I’m not going to go beyond that. Sorry I can’t be more helpful for now.”

... Ms. Leslie Kean never responded to previous requests for interviews with The Black Vault to question any of this, she did post a public comment after my first Pentagon statements were published. She stated, “For those following what I believe to be unnecessary controversy about the source of the DOD videos. If we at the Times did not have this document from a reliable source, we would not have stated that the videos were from the DOD.” She then links to an article by Alejandro Rojas.....

This now calls into question some reporting by the mainstream media, along with statements by To The Stars Academy, going all the way back to day 1. ...

If we see a blatant disregard for the truth by Mr. Elizondo on display with this DD Form 1910, and we see the same disregard for the truth by To The Stars Academy as they have touted documents proving a public release – how can we believe everything or anything else from the same sources?

Blackvault

Advantage Greenwald -

The ball is now in TTSAs court and lets see whatever Knapp or the Vex Pistols have lined up next to leak or unredact on their behalf.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Below is a 273 page Scientific Analysis of the Nimtz Encounter.......

They calculate all the g forces and perform a DETAILED analysis of the FLIR1 video.
Additionally please don't take my word, NYT, WASH POST, Politico, The HIll, CNN, FOX, Dave Fravor and three other pilots seriously. Of course Metabunk and yourself must know best. As I said let's not debate this point further. I RESPECT YOUR COMMENTS and I understand wHere you are coming from as I am a deeply skeptical person by nature.

273 pg Analysis of Nimtz Vidoes

Why not use your own brain instead of taking someone else's word for it, especially when it's easy to see how and why someone else is wrong?

Of course I'm not taking your word for it, I'm not taking the word of a retired physicist, and I'm definitely not taking the word of the analyst in that 273 page report who made an error even more obvious than the error made by the retired physicist. And I'm not asking anybody to take my word for it, I'm asking people to look at the video and prove to themselves that the analyses being promoted claiming acceleration are flawed.

That 273 page report despite its flaws actually supports the claim by metabunk that there was a zoom change at the end, which is easy to see. I think the retired physicist the metabunk video refers to just missed that zoom change in his analysis. so in a way your link to that report partially supports metabunk's claim that there was a change in zoom, it confirms that, and doesn't contradict it.

Let's look at what the author of Appendix K in that 273 page report, Larry Cates, misses, it's different than what the retired physicist missed with the zoom change.

Let's refer to the TTSA annotations which show some of what is being displayed on the video:



At 43 seconds the TTSA video explains this display near the top is showing "Sensor azimuth is aimed at 4 degrees right of aircraft axis."

Larry Cates needs to pay a lot more attention to that display because it appears that his analysis overlooks it. His analysis seems to assume that the object is centered in the display, and then near the end it starts moving to the left. While the video appears that way, looking that that particular number in the display tells us that apparance is deceiving because that's not what really happened.

What really happened according to that displayed value? Initially it shows 4 degrees right as indicated, then 3 degrees right, then 2 degrees right and so on, so the object is being tracked up until the last few seconds and the whole time the camera is moving toward the left. If the camera wasn't moving to the left and just had a stationary position relative to the plane's axis, and if the object was visible in a wide enough field of view, what this means is you would see the object moving to the left during the entire video. (which by the way does not necessarily imply the object is moving to the left, it just means it would appear that way in the display).

So you can plot those sensor azimuth values on a graph yourself, you have the video, so you don't need to take anybody's word for it. Someone on metabunk did that and this is what they got, you can do it too and see fi you get the same thing:

www.metabunk.org...


While that graph does show some interesting deviations from a smooth curve around the 10 and 30 second marks, from 35 seconds until the FLIR lock breaks, it's a fairly smooth steady curve showing the camera is panning to the left relative to the aircraft axis. Then what happens when the FLIR lock breaks and why does it break? TTSA comments again are helpful when they show that the FLIR lock was broken and re-acquired at about 2 minutes into their annotated version of the video:

At 1:58 TTSA notes the WSO is changing the settings and a few seconds later they note the lock was broken, and then re-acquired.


TTSA mentions a broken lock right after the settings change at 2:04:


This is at 2:09 and says the sensor rapidly regains the lock.


Now we get to the part where the FLIR video analysis by Larry Cates almost begins. This is just before his analysis, from the TTSA video, from about 2:24 to 2:28, the WSO is making multiple changes to the display:


Once again, the lock is broken, but this time there are more changes by the WSO and apparently all those changes are too much for the system to handle so this time is is not able to re-acquire the lock, and we see the target appear to go from not moving at all to suddenly start moving to the left, which Larry Cates incorrectly interprets as a sudden acceleration. Contrary to Larry's claim of some large acceleration, what the video shows is that the camera was steadily moving toward the left and the "sudden movement" is not an acceleration of the object but caused by the tracking lock caused by all the changes made by the WSO to the display, and the camera simply stopped moving toward the left as a result, so that created the appearance that the object started moving toward the left.

So here, note that both TTSA, and Larry Cates have just missed the situational awareness of what the display is telling them, apparently because they didn't pay enough attention to that azimuth display showing the the camera was panning to the left during the whole video, so it's no surprise that when the lock is broken by the WSO and the camera stops tracking to the left the object appears to start moving to the left, but that's just the result of the broken lock, and not the result of any acceleration by the object.

So going back to this graph, the tiny little segment at the end does not show any acceleration at all, it's just a continuation of the smooth motion that was present from 35 seconds onward in the version of the video Metabunk looked at (without all the TTSA annotations). Anybody should be able to confirm this for themselves if they have decent cognitive skills, it's not really that complicated, even though a retired physicist and Larry Cates apparently overlooked some things.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
273 pg Analysis of Nimtz Vidoes

I focused on the video in my previous post, since it's the only solid evidence and some provably incorrect claims were being made about it, but I will make some brief comments on Appendix J of the report you posted by Peter Reali. Fravor said he saw some things and it looks like Peter Reali tried to interpret what Fravor (and perhaps others) reported. Without commenting on any details of his analysis, first I will note that in the metabunk thread, Mick West notes how some of what Fravor describes is self-contradictory, that is be makes observations which are inconsistent with his own observations. West draws a graph to illustrate some problems with Fravor's account. But I believe Fravor saw something he thought was very interesting, that is not in doubt, but what is always in doubt about eyewitness accounts is the ability of a witness to visually estimate size, distance and speed of an unknown object.

This eyewitness problem was noted in Project Blue Book Special report 14 in 1954 after they had analyzed 4000 UFO reports, so despite our advanced sensor technology available today or even in 2004, the eyewitness problem is pretty much the same as was noted back in 1954:

archive.org...
p4 pdf p12
"It must be emphasized again and again that any conclusions in this report are based not on facts, but on what many observers thought and estimated the true facts to be."

p77 pdf p85:
"With the exception of some radar sightings, all of these maneuvers were observed visually. The possibilities for inaccuracies are great because of the inability of an observer to estimate visually size, distance, and speed."

I didn't review Peter Reali's analysis carefully enough to see if he pointed out such caveats which can affect the reliability of his calculations, but if he didn't, I will, or if he did, I'll restate that unlike sensor technology, eyewitnesses are still using the same human observation as they were in 1954 which has been demonstrated over and over to not be completely reliable.

This is why I and others always hope for a good video or similar documentation which isn't as subject to human error, but as I hope you can prove to yourself, the video doesn't show any special acceleration at the end, contrary to the claims of TTSA and Larry Cates who have seemingly been fooled by the appearance of such without paying enough attention to the angle of the camera changing throughout the video negating the claim of sudden acceleration at the end.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
Ok. I've seen some folks on here say things like "If this is legit" (referring to the Nimitz encounter and specifically the recording of it provided by TFT(R) "then it's unprecedented for UFOlogy" etc, sentiments along those lines.

My question: why? What's so groundbreaking?

We don't even know WHAT is on that recording- you know, the one with the "pilots" saying "It's a drone, bro" since of course that's exactly how NAVY PILOTS speak when they are working. (sarcasm) So, it could be a drone.

That is exactly how naval aviators speak.

It could be a drone. Could be something else.

originally posted by: mirageman







I laughed.

Anyone remember the Fall Guy theme music?

originally posted by: Willtell
Pandolfi is known as a prankster and a spreader of disinformation

We'd all be better off if Pandolfi simply disappeared up the same “inter-dimensional portal” that he claims his alien wife popped out of and swooned into his sex-godly arms.


Holy Moly, things have hardly moved on since the ultra-kooky Adamsky days in the 1950s!

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Someone might wanna let tft know

I've gone ahead and checked and it's nothing but thundery showers at gitmo at the moment and for the next week or so.

He might wanna pack a brolly...

a reply to: mirageman

They haven't noticed yet!!

But it won't make any difference, they will claim that pentagon spokespersons have been wrong before and "debunk" it that way.

Although they do use the same spokespersons words to prove Zondos positions and other information that supports their cult...errmm I mean beliefs, whilst discrediting information from the same source that conflicts.

a reply to: mirageman

This is turning kind of ugly. It’s hard to trust any of these characters. What are they going to say now?
Probably they will just ignore it and carry on

Even the statement from the DOD person is shaky, IMO.
“Never officially released.” Well, then what about unofficially?

Plausible deniability


Its probably just what they want. Constant uncertainty and confusion.

originally posted by: pigsy2400

He might wanna pack a brolly...

Two valuable purposes: rain; and using it to beat them off in the shower-room.

But he can also use his impressive (according to GUT) Hip-Hop rap routine to entertain the orange jump suits. Waste not, want not.

I really think this video was released unofficially by the government by means we know something about is all I’ll say.
That’s my opinion…I believed backed up by empirical (official and unofficial) evidence

Remember I said, “where through the looking glass folks” is not just a statement, I borrowed from the movie JFK( above)
It’s a reality dealing with these characters

White is black and black is white

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: mirageman

This is turning kind of ugly. It’s hard to trust any of these characters. What are they going to say now?
Probably they will just ignore it and carry on

Even the statement from the DOD person is shaky, IMO.
“Never officially released.” Well, then what about unofficially?

Plausible deniability


Its probably just what they want. Constant uncertainty and confusion.

I think the doublespeak here. Wil.l suggests that people who appear poles apart may well be working on the same side.

a reply to: mirageman

Absolutely…lol

a reply to: pigsy2400

I was thunking more of Zondo.