Tom DeLonge Anouncement: October 11th 9:00 AM PST/12:00 PM EST

a reply to: SeaYote

Thanks for the encouragement, I sure will :-)
I have an intuition that there is more here than the debunkers see (and the videos show). TTSA has already gone much further than people thought it would. And it will go on.

If you hurry you can ask questions to TTSA's Chris Mellon on Twitter, today 13th of May 2020.

This Wednesday at 10 a.m. PT/1 p.m. ET, TTSA Advisor & Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence @christopherkme4
will host a 1-hour live Q&A to answer your questions about #UAPs and government policy. Join us by using #TTSATalks to participate.

It seems all you have to do is reply to this Tweet with this hashtag: #TTSATalks

I'll, first off, admit that I have nowhere near the time invested in the 2004 Nimitz event as most here so may lack knowledge critical to answering the following question:
With so much of the apparent "otherworldly" behavior of the UAP attributable to only a scant few direct eyewitness accounts, why is everyone seem to accept this testimony as absolute gospel?
Is more credence being afforded the pilots because they're military? I ask because I've encountered this in other situations and have always found this baffling. For perspective, I'm a veteran of the United States Army and, while still enlisted, routinely engaged in all manners of shady behavior, the least of which was lying. And, I assure you, I was not an anomaly.
Soldiers, airmen, sailors - all branches recruit their members from a pool of regular human beings, not from some high-minded mountaintop monastery. As such, every single member of the armed forces is just as capable of deception as any civilian.
So, again, why have I not noticed anyone questioning the credibility of the pilots, if for nothing else, at least concerning what they claim to have witnessed on that eventful day? Is it not feasible that they could be playing their part in an ongoing counterintelligence operation?
As implied in opening, my questions may only reflect ignorance and, if so, please forgive and steer me right.

originally posted by: ChayOphan
I'll, first off, admit that I have nowhere near the time invested in the 2004 Nimitz event as most here so may lack knowledge critical to answering the following question:
? Is it not feasible that they could be playing their part in an ongoing counterintelligence operation?

Perfectly acceptable question. My own view is that TTSA/Military Intel does not need Tom Delonge to pull off a counter-intel operation. I'm cautiously optimistic. Until they start asking for budget funding to build a defense system, I'm on board.

Christopher K. Mellon just now on Twitter regarding Mick West theories (several tweets combined here):

On "GO FAST":

I think the speed is modest but also not the issue. How does something without wings or exhaust stay aloft at any speed and fly straight and true? If it were lighter than air, it would be buffeted by the wind rather than flying such a perfectly straight path.
However, the UAP case does not depend on this or any other video. We know from the Nimitz aviators and Princeton crew that a 50ft long white object achieved hypersonic speed from a near hover in seconds after being observed descending from extreme altitudes and hovering.

On all three videos:

The issue is no longer TTSA’s analysis but that of DoD. DoD pilots & analysts have rejected these explanations for a variety of reasons:

Gimbal, the aircraft would be visible, not just the heat of the exhaust; a jet could not move in that manner and retain lift;
same with FLIR.
In terms of Go Fast, it does not behave like a lighter than air object.

See:

A Forensic Analysis of CSG 11 Encounter with a AAV

a reply to: SacredLore

You'd think mellon would be smarter than those comments he made there.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Really?

Why would you think that?

a reply to: Phage

You have a good point. I'm pretty convinced he's not.

originally posted by: SacredLore
Christopher K. Mellon just now on Twitter regarding Mick West theories (several tweets combined here):

On "GO FAST":

I think the speed is modest but also not the issue. How does something without wings or exhaust stay aloft at any speed and fly straight and true? If it were lighter than air, it would be buffeted by the wind rather than flying such a perfectly straight path.

I've seen objects in the wind buffeted so yes it's possible, but it seems completely incompetent to assume that's the only possibility, since in Mick West's gofast video, he shows an example of a balloon flying in a straight line much like in the gofast video, so the path taken by a balloon depends on the wind conditions, not some false assumtion that a straight line flight is impossible.

However, the UAP case does not depend on this or any other video. We know from the Nimitz aviators and Princeton crew that a 50ft long white object achieved hypersonic speed from a near hover in seconds after being observed descending from extreme altitudes and hovering.

This is a deflection away from the video. Yes David Fravor tells an interesting story, but Mick West is pointing out the videos don't show any kind of advanced technology.

On all three videos:

The issue is no longer TTSA’s analysis but that of DoD. DoD pilots & analysts have rejected these explanations for a variety of reasons:

Gimbal, the aircraft would be visible, not just the heat of the exhaust

Mick West said otherwise and in the Bigelow megathread, guest101 posted a FLIR video where the heat of the exhaust is visible, not the plane. So I don't know how much is incompetence and how much is intentional deception when someone says this can't happen, this is 4 F-15s that look like 4 "Tic-Tacs" on flir:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So does that look like four "Tic-Tacs", or four F-15s"? Trick question, it's both in this case.

A Forensic Analysis of CSG 11 Encounter with a AAV

It's embarassing to be citing this source which failed peer review miserably on Larry Cates analysis of the FLIR video. Cates is a retired computer programmer who apparently has some skills to analyze video frames but unfortunately he doesn't take into account the other numbers on the display, a fatal flaw in his analysis. A retired physicist also performed an analysis where he didn't take into account some other numbers on the display, the zoom setting; Mick West also made a video about that. The analysis on Mick West's site metabunk takes into account the figures displayed on the screen and it's the correct analysis, and it shows Larry Cate's analysis in that document is very much incorrect, and Cates' analytical flaws have been noted in numerous places on the internet; the paper should have been retracted.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: SacredLore

You'd think mellon would be smarter than those comments he made there.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Really?

Why would you think that?

With intelligence personnel getting training like this...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I'm unsure how many of the completely wrong statements by Chris Mellon to attribute to incompetence and how many to attribute to intentional deception, but Hynek's UFO studies already confirmed pilots have the highest rate of misperception of any class of observer so it's just as wrong now to be overconfident of pilot perceptions as it was when Hynek performed his analysis. If anybody doubts this, pilots are the ones claiming if it was a plane they would be able to tell, it wouldn't look like a tic-tac, according to Chris Mellon, and I've heard pilots say that too. I've also heard Pilots talk about the "acceleration" at the end of the FLIR video including Fravor, when there isn't any acceleration at the end, another pilot misperception. It's merely a zoom change in the display.

originally posted by: SacredLore
I have an intuition that there is more here than the debunkers see (and the videos show).

I don't have any doubt that Fravor's story is more interesting than the videos, and I'd like to know more about what he saw, particularly from the E2 crew that apparently got an even better look at Fravor's tic-tac, and possibly recorded some electromagnetic emissions from it, but they aren't allowed to talk about it.

So among all the wrong statements Chris Mellon makes, I agree with one of them, that even without the videos, we still have the story of Fravor and the other pilots, but mostly just Fravor in the Nimitz incident.

Even when Fravor appeared on television with another pilot on the same sortie, the other pilot wasn't allowed to say much, and when he started to describe what he saw, the host cut him off and asked a stupid question, something like "how did you feel when you saw it?" So it seemed like they didn't want to let him tell what he saw in case it conflicts with Fravor. We already know there is some conflict where Fravor thought it was hovering and the other pilot thought it was traveling at about 500 knots, and I'll bet that's not the only inconsistency in the eyewitness observations. It's still an interesting story, but just a story since Fravor didn't flip the switch to turn on his camera.

How important was Fravor's UFO sighting to naval intelligence, if Fravor wasn't even debriefed as he says? Or maybe they already knew what it was which is my guess, which explains why he wasn't debriefed. They don't need to ask him a bunch of questions to figure out what it was if they already know, and the non-discosure agreements the E2 crew are said to have signed is another suggestion they know more than they are telling us about this event.

a reply to: NightVision

Thanks for your (well put) response.
At this point in the game, I can't even guess what possible use TDL could be to relevant parties. Initially, sure. In the months immediately following the underwhelming rollout of TTSA I would've thought maybe he was serving COINTEL, even if unwittingly. But now...? Just don't know.
But, I was really thinking more about the truthfulness of the pilots involved in the encounter. Nearly every bizarre aspect of the event relies solely upon their verbal account. To my (limited) knowledge, no physical proof exists that substantiates their extraordinary claims, only more verbal reports from indirect observers.
The videos themselves demonstrate nothing that couldn't be duplicated with common, readily available technology. Without context, I doubt anyone would find those clips the least bit interesting, let alone phenomenal. And, unfortunately, the context here boils down to stories. Captivating stories, absolutely, and well told. But still just stories.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well that cuts it out about being a balloon, travelling straight at 500 knots?

a reply to: myss427

What makes you think the video has anything to do with what Favor saw?

originally posted by: myss427
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well that cuts it out about being a balloon, travelling straight at 500 knots?

The star witness, David Fravor, says it was NOT traveling at 500 knots, he says it was hovering. So we have two witnesses of the same event who don't agree with each other about the speed, hence further documenting the unreliable nature of eyewitness testimony, and thus the need for something independent of human misperception like a video. But Fravor didn't turn on his camera, so there's no video of The UFO Fravor saw which he and the other pilots said "vanished". We have yet a third pilot who went out later and made a video of something, we don't know what, which he says he can't confirm is the same object Fravor saw, and if what Fravor saw vanished, I don't see how he or anybody else could possibly claim to know it's the same object.

thenimitzencounters.com...

Disagreement between witnesses about the 500 knots versus hovering:

CDR Fravor stated that the object was “holding like a Harrier.” ... LT.__________ described it as “solid white, smooth, with no edges. It was uniformly colored with no nacelles, pylons, or wings.” When asked to describe the appearance, if it glowed or reflected sunlight he said, “neither, it looked like it had a white candy-coated shell, almost like a white board.” His report differs from CDR Fravor in that he reported the object traveling level at approximately 500-1000 feet at approximately 500 knots.

So contrary to the lie all witnesses tell exactly the same story, no, they don't. That's a significant difference. I never said what Fravor saw was a balloon though, but I have seen a hypothesis about that, which I think is less likely than my hypothesis which I made a thread about. But since the E2 crew isn't allowed to talk about it, and they might be able to confirm my hypothesis, I can't assess it without their EM data.

This is the pilot who made the video admitting he can't confirm it was the same object Fravor saw, and for that object, I haven't yet found anything in the FLIR video that rules out a balloon. That doesn't mean it's a balloon, but if anybody finds something that rules out a balloon in the FLIR video, I'd like to know (other than the incompetent analyses by people who don't understand what the numbers on the display show which have already been proven wrong).

LT.__________ was clear in that he couldn’t confirm that it was the same object as described by FASTEAGLE flight. He never had visual, only seeing the object via the FLIR.

I also can't rule out a balloon on the gofast video, but the reasons Mellon gave for why that can't be a balloon seem totally fictitious and contrived, that it's impossible for a balloon to fly in a straight line. Most of the motion seen in the gofast video isn't even from "flying", it's a parallax effect from the geometry of the distance to the balloon-like object and to the water. Maybe Mellon doesn't understand parallax. From his comments, it seems there are many things he doesn't understand (or else he does but pretends not to because he has some kind of agenda).

a reply to: Arbitrageur

....So contrary to the lie all witnesses tell exactly the same story, no, they don't. That's a significant difference. I never said what Fravor saw was a balloon though, but I have seen a hypothesis about that, which I think is less likely than my hypothesis which I made a thread about. But since the E2 crew isn't allowed to talk about it, and they might be able to confirm my hypothesis, I can't assess it without their EM data.

But the Mellon hath spake on Twitter



So someone isn't getting their facts straight.

In fact what if this whole thing is staged to serve some form of IC operation? One including co-opting many of the so called witnesses, media personalities and politicians. We know TTSA oversees a secondary group of 'social media influencers as it as confirmed via WIkileaks. So why couldn't this whole thing be a staged event to serve the interests of the National Security State that has more to do with espionage than chasing UFOs.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

....So contrary to the lie all witnesses tell exactly the same story, no, they don't. That's a significant difference. I never said what Fravor saw was a balloon though, but I have seen a hypothesis about that, which I think is less likely than my hypothesis which I made a thread about. But since the E2 crew isn't allowed to talk about it, and they might be able to confirm my hypothesis, I can't assess it without their EM data.

But the Mellon hath spake on Twitter

So why couldn't this whole thing be a staged event to serve the interests of the National Security State that has more to do with espionage than chasing UFOs.

If that were the case, this would be pushed/rolled out in an official govt capacity would it not? TTSA is not an official organization. They are a small group of former insiders. A member of a rock group from Poway, CA started this whole thing, remember? They are hardly on the radar on the world stage. The push was to get a Govt institution to legitimize the phenomenon, and eventually get funding to bring recovered ET tech into the public. The first part has happened. We'll see about the latter.

a reply to: NightVision

If that were the case, this would be pushed/rolled out in an official govt capacity would it not? TTSA is not an official organization.

Not necessarily. Never heard of an entertainment company set up as a CIA front? Studio Six

Or a vaccination project in Pakistan to end the world's longest game of hide and seek.

The push was to get a Govt institution to legitimize the phenomenon, and eventually get funding to bring recovered ET tech into the public. The first part has happened....

I don't recall the Govt. legitimizing the "phenomenon". Can you point to your source for that?

originally posted by: mirageman


Not necessarily. Never heard of an entertainment company set up as a CIA front? Studio Six

Or a vaccination project in Pakistan to end the world's longest game of hide and seek.


I don't recall the Govt. legitimizing the "phenomenon". Can you point to your source for that?

Addressing your first point. Yes, the CIA likely has webbing that reaches into most, if not all our biggest institutions. Media Networks, Google, Apple, etc. Regarding TTSA, that would have to mean that Tom DeLonge is in on it himself. Given his background, I personally doubt that. It makes no sense unless the end goal is to secure public funding for defense weapons. Our govt is perfectly capable of doing that without TTSA's help.

Article

2nd Point. Both the Pentagon and DoD have released video footage, specifically describing the objects as UFOs. Meaning 'unidentified', not originating from any known country's terrestrial technology. This would be the first time this has happened.

a reply to: NightVision

Both the Pentagon and DoD have released video footage, specifically describing the objects as UFOs. Meaning 'unidentified', not originating from any known country's terrestrial technology. This would be the first time this has happened.

Unidentified means "not identified". It doesn't mean "not originating from any country's terrestrial technology".

#cough



Twining Memo 1947 confirming the phenomenon was real.

Followed by something called Projects Sign, Grudge and Bluebook which investigated over 12000 UFO cases.

But yes these objects are officially classed as unidentified. As were 700 or so cases from Project Bluebook.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: NightVision


Unidentified means "not identified". It doesn't mean "not originating from any country's terrestrial technology".

#cough

Technically speaking, that's true. However, every member of TTSA including Elizondo has gone on record as saying that they don't believe the objects to be of terrestrial origin. These are former insiders who were embedded deep within this arena. They could be now. We don't know.