Second Article by The New York Times on ufos

And why can’t someone who makes the ATFLIR say that the object is moving very slow? No one in the military - or those who created the ATFLIR - wants to explain this? Do they want to explain either of the other two UAP videos?

Are there any people - whose actual everyday jobs deal with the ATFLIR - willing to come forward? If so, where are they? This whole thing is the military’s fault. They - or the people who make the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR targeting pod - should address the issue for everyone to know.

Oh wait… they did! And they said it was an UNKNOWN. Not a bird. Not a balloon. But an UNKNOWN.

That of course is because those at the top know exactly what they are and they will not tell us. Not just because the military does not want us to know, but because the aliens themselves do not want us to know. Remember, the USS Roosevelt pilots talked about many UFO events and having to deal with these things over a period of weeks during 2014 and 2015, both on the east coast and over the gulf during wartime. They were not just talking about “Go Fast” and “Gimbal”. Lt. Ryan Graves and Lt. Danny Accoin, pilots who flew Hornets with the Red Rippers during the time of these filmed events have said that the UFO’s were preforming in ways that human aircraft could not, like staying in the air for hours. They would show up at 30k, then be at sea level. They could hover in place, then hit supersonic speeds. What we are hearing on “Go Fast” sounds like fliers reacting to THESE UFO’s - not to birds or balloons.

What may interest me the most is how anyone can think that such a simple answer as a bird or balloon could possibly be true? That the military with their decades old built-in excuses of weather balloons, marsh gas, ice crystals and Venus could not come up with an answer for the ‘Go Fast’ and the other 2 UAP videos. That they would tell the world that the mighty Pentagon had no idea what they were! Nearly 23,000 people work in the Pentagon and not one could figure out that this was a bird or a balloon? Not even one, of all the thousands of naval pilots who have flown over the ocean, not one has recognized that this was only a bird or balloon?

Yet some dudes on YouTube can easily explain it away as nothing (even though they cannot agree on if it is just a bird or a balloon). If it was that simple why would not the military come out and say it when these videos were first released? Are the military - and especially its fighter pilots - really dumber than the YouTube jockey flying his desktop?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
What may interest me the most is how anyone can think that such a simple answer as a bird or balloon could possibly be true? That the military with their decades old built-in excuses of weather balloons, marsh gas, ice crystals and Venus could not come up with an answer for the ‘Go Fast’ and the other 2 UAP videos.

But the pentagon request form to release the videos DID list balloons as one of the subjects for the three videos! And the performance characteristics in GoFast do not rule out a balloon, so the release form to me suggests they probably think it's a balloon:


See subject area: UAV, balloons, and other UAS.

The fact that we can't rule out a balloon doesn't mean for sure it's a balloon, so that's why they are still calling it unidentified and saying they don't know what it is, but that form suggests they think it's a balloon, at least one of them and Gofast seems the most likely candidate for a balloon of the three videos.

Because the DIA told Fravor (a career O5 in the navy with a TS clearance at least) it is in the interest of national security for him to embellish the flying saucer/tictac angle. It's as simple as that. Just like the spooks came and told Kevin Day to talk up his experiences and just like Rick Doty did.

Why on earth would he talk about it otherwise?

it is a reply to: spiritualarchitect


If y'all are getting paid can you pm me sorosbux/Illuminati/reptilian payroll's extension? I think they might have the wrong routing number or something.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
Are you talking about that dude on YouTube who did the Trig to determine the speed?

lol...

He had one MAJOR hole in his calculations... he said his math put the craft at thousands of feet above the water, when its VERY clear at one point the craft goes INTO the water and out. His math is completely wrong based on the altitude he gave the craft.

No, the jet’s SENSORS actually MEASURED the angle and the distance of the object from the jet and, given the jet’s altitude, clearly show that the object is halfway the jet and the water surface.
The object angle and distance plus the jet’s altitude can be DIRECTLY READ off the display. There can be no doubt that the object is nowhere near the water surface.

Mick’s calculations then use this data from the ATFLIR display to estimate the object’s speed, which is in a range compatible with a large bird like an albatross. The apparent speed is just a parallax effect.

So, why is TTSA trying to convince everybody otherwise?

To me, it comes across as a handful of people trying to get funding to continue their hobby, which is studying UFOs and other fringe topics without too many questions asked. Most of them have filled their entire career with this. Others want a change of career in the same direction. The only thing they need right now is funding, and the best way to get it is to convince people of a threat or a potential technological breakthrough or both.

I haven’t seen any convincing evidence so far. The best piece of evidence is Fravor’s story, but we’ve had similar stories for more than 70 years now. And alas, pilots are not infallible.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mick west the glitch in the matrix aka Mr Anderson' , when we hear his name one should believe UFOs are real..

More advertisement for that unidenrified fiasco

originally posted by: IMSAM
a reply to: Macenroe82

the 64k question is, do they have a craft? or part of a craft? or anything resembling a craft? Or just fragments that might prove to be meteorites or slug waste? Articles are great but at some point we need to see the goods

Yep. If we are to believe these slides are real and the Pentagon knows what they are talking about, it's the second point on the nature of the threat which proves that the Pentagon thinks these are craft from somewhere else and are capable of game changing abilities.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: celltypespecific

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: celltypespecific

ITs time to finally CALL OUT MM.... He has been completely wrong about AATIP and Big Lue from DAY one!!!!

Well start with day one then Cellty : Bigelow, UFOs, MUFON and 'DeLonge' Road to AATIP, page 1

You tell me what I got wrong! Baring in mind that was all two and a half years ago and all we have is 3 debatable videos and a lot of talk.

WRONG>>>>>>> See Leslie's reply to your Nonsense:

You're just proving Leslie Kean is a liar when she says it's the same slide, Hal's slide included the word "possibly", meaning we don't know. The slide in the New York Times isn't the same slide, because it doesn't have the word "possibly" implying they are ET.

Mirageman has consistently been much more reliable than you, and heck you can make completely opposite posts 5 minutes apart when you change your mind, mirageman is also more consistent than you.

This is the slide Hal used in at 9:12 in his 2018 talk showing "possibly including off-world"", whereas "possibly" is missing from the slide Leslie Kean gave us, proving her a liar, and untrustworthy, though she might be just another pawn in the psy-op going on to feed us BS.

Removing the word possibly changes the context.

What makes you think these are slides from the same presentation?? Kean clearly states theirs is from a presentation to the Congressional staff and DOD officials. The one you are talking about (possibly including) is a presentation for a different audience.

a reply to: Sublant

What makes you think these are slides from the same presentation?? Kean clearly states theirs is from a presentation to the Congressional staff and DOD officials. The one you are talking about (possibly including) is a presentation for a different audience.

Having made many technical PP presentations in my career, I will attest to the fact that for most of them, there were multiple versions geared to the audiences they were being presented to. It is done all the time, so this makes sense to me.

Additionally, Leslie Kean has journalistic integrity, and lying about important aspects of her work is not likely.

a reply to: charlyv

Leslie Kean’s UFO articles are more activism than journalism. Since the first NYT story, Kean and the other authors concealed more information about AATIP than they disclosed. That’s typical of her stories, and like a trial lawyer or stage magician, she only shows you just what she wants you to see.

a reply to: charlyv

Leslie Kean’s UFO articles are more activism than journalism. Since the first NYT story, Kean and the other authors concealed more information about AATIP than they disclosed. That’s typical of her stories, and like a trial lawyer or stage magician, she only shows you just what she wants you to see.

Well I can support the notion that the observation of an unknown phenomena and the admittance of such is not proof of any specific reality (aliens). I find those claiming proof of aliens to simply be of higher faith on the matter, im very interested to simply understand and wait and see with out the endless speculation and assertions of validation.

a reply to: IMSAM

originally posted by: Sublant
What makes you think these are slides from the same presentation?? Kean clearly states theirs is from a presentation to the Congressional staff and DOD officials. The one you are talking about (possibly including) is a presentation for a different audience.

Read what Kean says!

originally posted by: celltypespecific
WRONG>>>>>>> See Leslie's reply to your Nonsense:

"The only time he has shown THIS SLIDE to the public was in his 2018 talk."
-Leslie Kean

This slide!

THIS SLIDE!

How much more specific can she be? She's not talking about some vague presentation, "this slide" obviously means the slide in the NYT article.

She says Hal Puthoff included it in his July 2018 lecture, which we have a recording of. She didn't say he made a similar presentation, she said Hal Puthoff included it. No he didn't, it's not the same slide Hal Puthoff included.

originally posted by: CardDown
a reply to: charlyv

Leslie Kean’s UFO articles are more activism than journalism. Since the first NYT story, Kean and the other authors concealed more information about AATIP than they disclosed. That’s typical of her stories, and like a trial lawyer or stage magician, she only shows you just what she wants you to see.

Very true.

More problems with Leslie Kean's journalistic integrity have surfaced

She bragged about her star witness Eric Davis as being such a good source, but she failed to check his claim, so the NYT readers checked it, found it was false, and then she snuck in a change to the online NYT story though I guess she can't change the story in the printed version and I wasn't able to find any correction posted for either one in their lists of correction notices. This is not journalistic integrity.

If she really had journalistic integrity, she would have realized that Eric Davis publicly saying poltergeists are real and one followed him home does not exactly make him a mainstream, reliable source, that should be obvious to anybody. The New York Times claims it's one of the last publications that still does real journalism where facts are carefully checked, but when Kean starts with a source as unreliable as Eric Davis to begin with, it almost flies in the face of the idea of checking facts. Still, she could have fact-checked the specifics of Davis's claim, and she didn't.

originally posted by: charlyv
Having made many technical PP presentations in my career, I will attest to the fact that for most of them, there were multiple versions geared to the audiences they were being presented to. It is done all the time, so this makes sense to me.

So, Hal Puthoff showed the true slide to a limited gathering in 2018.

Then when the audience changed to the public that needs to be deceived according to the Snowden leaked document (title below), then we get a different slide because according to that, it's the public who needs to be deceived.



So yes the slide did change according to the audience, but that doesn't make Leslie Kean's lie that it was the same slide true. You guys need to read what she actually said! And now her story has changed because she has an unreliable source and didn't check her facts.

John Greenewald got quotes from Kean, Puthoff and Elizondo... as well as a statement from a Pentagon spokesperson that confirms the "off world.. AAV... crash/retrieved" slide was from a Puthoff/BAASS presentation, not a DOD document.
On The Trail of the AATIP UFO PowerPoint Slide