'Unidentified' - Episode 5 - when TTSA crashed and burned with outright dishonesty and deception

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I have not had the time to watch the episode 5, yet. But I am surprised by your emotional reaction to it.

ConfusedBrit:

Almost scandalously, making this the most muddled and inaccurate Rendlesham documentary ever made

TTSA are deceptive and inept baboons by this point

mirageman:

Rendlesham is such a convoluted mess

So TTSA failed to get the facts straight for a "convoluted mess" that nobody has been able to figure out before.
Big deal. Really?

Yes, they have made mistakes and probably it was not a good idea to choose Rendlesham for a documentary. Another mistake.
Does this undo the good they have done for bringing the subject of UFOs out of the shadows of ridicule?
Not for me.

originally posted by: SacredLore
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

I have not had the time to watch the episode 5, yet. But I am surprised by your emotional reaction to it.

ConfusedBrit:

Almost scandalously, making this the most muddled and inaccurate Rendlesham documentary ever made

TTSA are deceptive and inept baboons by this point

mirageman:

Rendlesham is such a convoluted mess

So TTSA failed to get the facts straight for a "convoluted mess" that nobody has been able to figure out before.
Big deal. Really?

Yes, they have made mistakes and probably it was not a good idea to choose Rendlesham for a documentary. Another mistake.
Does this undo the good they have done for bringing the subject of UFOs out of the shadows of ridicule?
Not for me.

I must admit, I did not enjoy this episode that much. This case has been done to death, with no real answers.

But the other episodes have been pretty good. Being into this subject as long as I have , you would know that certain people relish the opportunity to ridicule. It's just something they do, and like doing in my opinion.

This subject is full of hard-core believers and hard-core debunkers. Both groups are exactly the same and pretty much use alot of their beliefs to get to their conclusion.

Just the way it is

a reply to: SacredLore

Yes, they have made mistakes and probably it was not a good idea to choose Rendlesham for a documentary. Another mistake.

They really did screw up the basic story with Rendlesham. It was completely amateur retelling and distortion of facts. I think the point was they really wanted to highlight John Burroughs claims about getting injured as a result of his experiences. Better researchers would have made the point in the limited time they had on screen.

Again we come back to the questions about AATIP and Elizondo. If he was really studying UFO cases and potential threats why is this retelling so inaccurate? Why is he only now appearing to be taking notes on the case?

Does this undo the good they have done for bringing the subject of UFOs out of the shadows of ridicule? Not for me.

Point taken. The US media has reported in a much more sober way since Dec 2017 albeit in mainly soundbites. Is that due to TTSA and the likes of Blumenthal, Cooper, Keane, Bender and Elizondo producing an interesting article back in 2017 for NY Times and Politico? I suspect so.

But I also wonder if a wider agenda is at hand there. The Pentagon are part of this game by making researchers like John Greenewald squeeze every last drop of information from them and never giving anything away voluntarily. As far as I recall the only thing released by FOIA is the list of 38 DIRD papers related to AAWSAP,

I think we come back to the continuing problem of vagueness, refusal to give long form interviews and the fact that TTSA are built on counter-intel.

If TTSA had been upfront from day one and said

Here's what we've got. Some videos and witness testimony from military personnel encountering unknown aerial objects whilst going about their duties. There's the documentation. We know it omits details but that's it.

Our first objective is to bring the subject of UFOs out of the shadow of ridicule.

Then we will put pressure on Congress to further study the subject.

After that we aim to make public any further findings

But they didn't.

The journalists involved can't even follow up on this story by DeLonge



Maybe that was just Tom goofing around hey and it isn't true?

Wikileaks revealed DeLonge had contact with General William N. McCasland (Commander, Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio) and former General Michael Carey (whose last military assignment was Special Assistant to the Commander, Air Force Space Command.

So there's two Generals journalists could go chasing after. Why aren't the Pentagon being pushed for comments on whether they have any comments on TTSA and Tom DeLonge's comments?

Kean, Knapp and Bender really are showing their complete lack of objectivity here? They are supposed to be investigative journalists aren't they? Yet they won't delve deep into this subject.

I am not a journalist but this potential path of investigation has been ignored.

The reason why seems obvious.

a reply to: mirageman

You make a good point.

TTSA itself is so incompetent, as this episode and the others illustrate, that the only thing left to ponder or see is what the PTB are doing with it.

Why did the MSM all of a sudden give ufology a fair reportage? It does seem to be that it started with TTSA, or maybe that’s only incidental we don’t know.

Has the media reported on other UFO news positive as well? I don’t know or is it only TTSA who gets that reportage?
Maybe they are only a vehicle for some future disclosure. We just don’t know.

What we do know is that it's not done any substantive reporting on any ufo events as of yet, in-fact its output has been substandard.

AT this point, It's a mystery what TTSA is really all about because their ufo research output is so weak...and the remaining anomaly, the MSM reportage, hangs over them all by itself.

a reply to: The GUT

Thank you for that info. I'll google that. I'm very curious about all this. I don't have all the background that many seem to have on this, and I feel the need to catch up.