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.

 

The Pentagon Destroyed Emails Of Luis Elizondo: Here's How It Went Down

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh no another debunk parallax video? That first video you posted is ripped right out of context. Only one small problem, the original video shows within the few seconds in the beginning that the background is not moving at all! Only until the pilot is manually moving the camera to get auto track lock. The object is obviously moving fast itself and low just as the pilots originally said it was.

This all came to be I think from Mick West, whom made a debunking video trying to prove the object was higher in altitude and close to the plane and his 'parallax' hypothesis making the object seem fast. He tried to prove this with his trig calculation which I found to be in error. I posted my argument along with my own calculations to disprove his debunking and I never got a counter argument. He really can't. You simply cannot have a leg of a right-angle triangle be longer than the hypotenuse of that right-angle triangle. He KNOWS this. I think he still stands by his debunking video. OK, whatever...and he has droves of followers. I shot holes all over in his hypothesis. I should of been a pilot.




posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: gnarkill1529

dont think it doesn't bother me that you couldnt explain what this PSY OP is accomplishing



There's endless speculation about it over on this thread (which you posted in) so why waste my time?

Do you want me to say the ramping up of corporate sponsered hysteria could cause a societal tipping point needed to trigger a 'reset' or that COG may be implemented giving Northcom the reigns to America?

It's obviously just conjecture because we can't see into the future but what we can do is look at the historical background (and behaviour) of the organizations (and individuals) involved.. and believe me it does not paint a pretty picture.

edit on 3-6-2021 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: sean
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I posted my argument along with my own calculations to disprove his debunking and I never got a counter argument.
Where? Link?
edit on 202163 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: karl 12

I didnt ask the PSY OP question in that thread so I'm not going to look for some answer in another thread.

But you are right its all just speculation which you and a few others on here seem to believe its actual fact. If you dont have a solid conclusion then why call all this PSY OP? You and a few others seem to think it is, but all its doing is pushing the UFO issue further into the public? Why? Let me make myself clear. I dont trust the Pentagon but I do believe they are being honest about these UFO videos being unidentified. When have they ever said something like that before? When have they acknowledged this issue like they are right now? All this is a direct result of elizondo and TTSA. If you deny that YOU are willingly be intellectually dishonest, which will make me rethink your part in the research community. Elizondo has been giving major promise with this whole deleting emails thing and makes me believe he may be in the right here. I guess the sour grapes was spot on with you and other researchers. Calling people dis info agents without proof is pretty poor form for you.



posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Back in the late 2000s there was a humanitarian vaccination project sponsored by the CIA in Abbottabad? If you don't know now what that was all about you might want to look that one up.

That was a psy-op where the visible means gave no clue to the objective.

If this currently long running US production is "disclosure" of the discovery of something truly not of this Earth then it's the strangest way of going about it.

Something odd is definitely taking place. Along the way there have been numerous pointers to this.

● A team of former spooks joined DeLonge's entertainment company. One of them remains on his board.

● Why would an entertainment company employ a bunch of advisers in neuroscience, counter biological weapons, brain injuries and a Biomedical Attorney which no one ever talks about?



Weirdly Jeff Epstein was into funding that field before he was silenced. See this long deleted report

link


● The appearance of TTSA Sucked all the life out of ufology (maybe that was needed with all the grifters and charlatans involved? But sadly new ones have appeared).

● The emergence of TTSA all but buried 70 years of UFO history by concentrating and prioritizing a single UFO case from 17 years ago. A narrative totally reliant on the US Navy. Perhaps they want that history forgotten and buried for a reason?

● A manipulated bunch of social media influencers [SMI] were groomed to build up a frenzy of excitement before pictures/video of batman balloons, mylar ballons and bokeh (or alien spacecraft disguised as such things) are then "dropped" at a later date.T

● Said SMI also unsubtly fostered a false impression on gullible people that scepticism is an attack on them and on ufology. Tweeting is apparently all about 'believing'.

● We've also seen manipulative attempts to elevate witness testimony as most important in cases and the credibility of people who fly jet fighters as almost superhuman [compared to their actual qualifications]. Yet it has been long found that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. Hynek also revealed that military pilots were more likely to misidentify known phenomena as UFOs than all other professions.



America might have a history of turning up late for major wars. But if these incidents really represented a threat, or even just an 'unknown' incursion, why were the top brass so inept that they ignored it all for 14 years? That is until a bunch of spooks, teamed up with a retired punk rock singer to make reality TV finally greasing the wheels of Congress!

If you think this is 'disclosure' then it's some form of a psy-op leading up to it.

If it isn't about 'disclosure' then what else can it be but a psy-op?




edit on 3/6/2021 by mirageman because: typos



posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: gnarkill1529
I dont trust the Pentagon but I do believe they are being honest about these UFO videos being unidentified.
They may or may not have identified the craft with the flashing strobes in the "flying pyramid" bokeh video, but, so what? The flashing strobes look pretty familiar even if I can't tell you exactly what aircraft it is.


When have they ever said something like that before?
1952, and numerous times since then, officials have admitted there are UFOs.

Maj. Gen. John A. Samford's Statement on "Flying Saucers", Pentagon, Washington, DC, 07/31/1952

"There have been a certain percentage of this volume of reports that have been made by "credible observers" of relatively incredible things. It is this group of observations that we are now attempting to resolve. Our basic difficulty in dealing with these is that there is no measurement of them that makes it possible for us to put them in any pattern that would be profitable for a deliberate, custom sort of analysis to take the next step.

We have as of date come to only one firm conclusion with respect to this remaining percentage, and that is that it does not contain any pattern of purpose or of consistency that we can relate to any conceivable threat to the United States."

So he basically says there are credible reports of UFOs, and so did numerous pronouncements after his.

The one thing that's changed is the more recent painting of the UFOs as "threats", in contrast to Sanford's statement that they weren't able to relate them to "any conceivable threat to the United States". The evidence to back up Sanford's assessment is that we've had UFO reports for 70 years now, and so far I can't think of any reports that suggest any credible attacks against the United States, as he said. Yet for some reason, one part of the narrative that has changed from quarters like TTSA is the "threat narrative".

Kevin Day mentioned something about "safety of flight issues", in the danger of avoiding collisions between our aircraft and "UFOs", but nobody can even seem to get a decent photo or video of one of these UFOs, so how are they going to collide with it? The recently leaked photos look like balloons and such.

The FLIR video made by Chad Underwood in 2004 that there's been such a fuss about initially shows an object which radar indicated was 40 miles away according to one report, hence why it's such a fuzzy blob with no real definition. Just about anything can become a fuzzy blob at that distance, you can't even see it with your naked eye, and it doesn't pose much of a collision threat at that distance so I don't really see the threat in that case. The threat narrative seems like a false narrative not backed up by evidence to me. I think history shows that General Sanford was right; whatever the heck they are, they don't seem to be a threat, and I don't get what consciousness researchers were needed for on TTSA's board, unless it has something to do with how get people to perceive a threat from a 40-mile distant fuzzy dot on a video, which don't seem threatening at all.

edit on 202163 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 3 2021 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
● Why would an entertainment company employ a bunch of advisers in neuroscience, counter biological weapons, brain injuries and a Biomedical Attorney which no one ever talks about?

I'm not sure, that's odd. Of course Bigelow is in the thick of things and he's had past and present projects in consciousness research. That's mentioned in this analysis which suggests there seems to be some kind of effort to destroy the scientific approach to UFOs, and replace it with some medieval non-scientific baloney:

Unvarnished overview of the current UFO phenomena

By this spring, the imminent report, and prodding from Mellon and Kean, prompted another round of uncritical media coverage. Kean and Elizondo were profiled in the aforementioned credulous New Yorker article tied to the congressional report Mellon had lobbied for. Within days, Elizondo and Mellon, who left TTSA for their own unnamed new national security UFO venture, were everywhere in the media, from 60 Minutes to CNN, reinforcing the Pentagon and UFO threat narrative skeptics did not recognize.

The threat narrative was a brilliant bit of framing, turning a story of poltergeist hunters battling a cabal of demon-believers into a national security issue. But this influence campaign masks the deeper transformation its advocates want to bring about: Puthoff and his colleagues seek to delegitimize material science in favor of a magical, neo-medieval view of reality founded on spirit, or, in their terms, security issue. But this influence campaign masks the deeper transformation its advocates want to bring about: Puthoff and his colleagues seek to delegitimize material science in favor of a magical, neo-medieval view of reality founded on spirit, or, in their terms, “consciousness” and psychic powers. Elizondo still speaks of demon cabals, otherworldly beings, and UFOs operating beyond human perception, just not on 60 Minutes. UFOs, newly relevant as a security threat, are only the vanguard of a larger effort to undo the failure of Stargate and elevate spirit over matter. It’s bad science and dangerous as government policy, the kind of magical thinking that leads to lunacy and disaster.
...
Elizondo, and Mellon. So long as a compliant media plays along with the “fun” of UFOs, the clumsy effort to use them to break down modern science continues unabated. And Bigelow is prepared: Blumenthal recently gave him a lavish New York Times profile to launch his new think tank for “consciousness science” and afterlife studies. Bigelow appointed Hal Puthoff, members of the “invisible college,” and Leslie Kean.
Something strange is going on. Maybe they never identified the fuzzy dot in the FLIR video, but if it was 40 miles away, it doesn't seem like much of a threat. Couple that with Kevin Day's story which contradicts what the Pilot Chad Underwood said, and it's obvious someone is not telling us the truth. Nobody talks about that though; investigative journalism is all but gone, you have to watch Mick West's channel to find out things like that, and that almost never seems to find its way to mainstream media.

edit on 202163 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 4 2021 @ 05:54 AM
link   
Why bug Luis. He has remained loyal to his NDA. Trying to goad him in to a reason to legally remove him from public eye perhaps. It has to be internally excruciating speaking about the subject matter publicly, all the while knowing so much more that he can not say.



posted on Jun, 7 2021 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Here is the ABC video of the "go fast". You can see in the beginning of the video that the object is clearly moving faster than background. The pilot is having trouble keeping up and moving the camera ahead of the object to try and get a lock and auto track. The background only moves wildly when the pilot moves the camera or auto tracking takes over.



Here is Mick's youtube "debunking" video of the "go fast" where I have posted there numerous times telling him that his calculations are in error. He has never changed his stance.



Here is another video where Mick goes into explaining the "go fast" video and once again saying how "easy" it is to calculate the height of the object is down from the plane and say's it's roughly half the height of the plane (which isn't true). This interview was taken after my response to Mick's debunking video. This guy is bullheaded and misleading.



I'll post again here why it is wrong... The information in the HUD shows the plane doesn't deviate at all very much from 25k ft, which equates to 4.11 nautical miles. The range that Mick uses is 4.4nm (hypotenuse) and the angle of the plane at 26 degrees and uses S=O/H. Now plugging in all that information you'll wind up with a 1.92nm like in his video. This is incorrect!!

If the angle is 26, then the other angle has to be 64 and the planes height of 4.11nm at right-angle to the sea level at 90 for a total of 180 degrees. Now if you plug all that info in, you'll wind up with a hypotenuse of 4.57nm by using hyp=adj/cos(26) and the base being 2. So you can see that there is a problem here in his video at 4.57nm and the HUD is reading at 4.4nm this places the object close to the sea level. Now... how in the hell does Mick even believe that the object is at a height of 1.92nm (11800ft) and half way below the plane?? He Knows the height of the plane is 4.11 and he clearly see's the HUD reading at 4.4nm. It's ridiculous! His math error is that he used S=O/H which is incorrect and he didn't start off a base line of information to compare. Mick should have used... hyp=adj/cos(26) in the very beginning to compare the adjacent lines which gives us height of the leg of the UFO.

So the proper calculations places the UFO at 0.16nm above the sea level at a height of 972ft. It actually starts to climb from 972ft to 8000ft as the video plays out and the range changes in the video. With that info and speed of the plane you can calculate the speed of which that object moved between that distance. The object in the beginning of the video really does look like it's moving quite fast.

The fighter jet top speed of a super hornet is 1.2 mach. The jet would be moving at a much slower cruising speed and not full speed with afterburn engaged. Afterburners are only used in dogfights doing evasive maneuvers and taking off from the ground when they need that extra boost to get lift. They basically spray fuel from nozzles into the engines first stage burn stream giving a sudden second burn thrust up to 50%. This will obviously eat up even more fuel. I don't know all the numbers, but if we calculate a moderate estimate of cruising speed I am guessing there is 1.8 mach speed unaccounted for between the object and the super hornet. That's a lot of speed for an object that everyone believes is a balloon or a bird!

Let's use basic logic and reasoning here. This clip is not the entire video. It's highly probably that there is a full video with a ton more data and it's likely classified. Does Mick honestly believe that pilots would be scrambled to go on a "Goose" chase? My goodness give the pilots some credit in their trained observations. They are not just looking at a HUD they are visually looking at it with their naked eyes as well as communicating with command and support planes with more advanced radar. So you have multiple confirmations that there is something very odd flying around out there and it's large enough to be picked up by radar sweeps. Maybe it is an advanced drone who knows. It could be drones flying drugs. All of this will remain a mystery till some Navy pilot gets the go ahead to blast it out of the sky. I don't know shoot a EMP at it or something and disrupt it and then swoop in to pick it up. We're obviously at a stagnated standpoint here where we need some physical evidence. I think it's time for a smash and grab operation. LOL



posted on Jun, 7 2021 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: sean
I'll post again here why it is wrong... The information in the HUD shows the plane doesn't deviate at all very much from 25k ft, which equates to 4.11 nautical miles. The range that Mick uses is 4.4nm (hypotenuse)
So far in complete agreement. Here is the screenshot from his video at 2:37 showing the 4.4 nm and the 26° outlined in red:


and the angle of the plane at 26 degrees and uses S=O/H. Now plugging in all that information you'll wind up with a 1.92nm like in his video. This is incorrect!!
I come up with 1.9272 which I rounded up to 1.93 nm, maybe Mick truncated it to 1.92, but I'm not going to quibble about 1.92 versus 1.93 in this context.

Here is Mick's diagram a short time later in the video:


I made a larger diagram here:



If the angle is 26, then the other angle has to be 64 and the planes height of 4.11nm at right-angle to the sea level at 90 for a total of 180 degrees. Now if you plug all that info in, you'll wind up with a hypotenuse of 4.57nm by using hyp=adj/cos(26) and the base being 2. So you can see that there is a problem here in his video at 4.57nm and the HUD is reading at 4.4nm this places the object close to the sea level.
Can you make a drawing of what you're doing?
I don't follow what you're saying at all. There's one triangle in this calculation, in my diagram it's shown in green.
The hypotenuse is not calculated, it's 4.4 nm read directly from the display, it's the straight line distance to the UFO.

I do follow that there exists a 64 degree angle on the other side of the 26 degrees, but it's not part of any triangle in my drawing, so I don't understand why you're even mentioning that, it's not needed for the calculations I did at all. No calculations are needed for the hypotenuse of the green triangle, it's read directly from the display, as is the 26 degrees, so this is really pretty straightforward.

If I have to guess, maybe your comment "angle of the plane at 26 degrees" shows some kind of misunderstanding on your part, the 26 degrees is the angle the camera aims downward. I don't really know what you mean by "angle of the plane" but the plane's altitude is relatively constant around 25000 feet, so it's not angled up or down, though it does turn a little to the left while maintaining that altitude.

edit on 202168 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 8 2021 @ 08:28 PM
link   


Here I drawn a 26, 64 and 90 triangle. The 26 angle I marked in red is clearly made by the adjacent leg of the triangle. With that information you can calculate the hypotenuse of that triangle @ 4.57nm with a base of 2nm. If the 26 marked in red is true then the angle in green must be 64. The issue here is that Mick is taking a cosine adjacent angle here and plugging into a sine calculation. So basically... Mick is taking one value of one triangle on the left and plugging it into the triangle on the right. Seriously?

You create the first triangle with the correct information and then you create another triangle with the information of 4.4nm and then you overlay them and compare the two triangle's adjacent lines, which represents the height, basically subtracting one from the other is what is happening to get to the proper height of the UFO. I hope this clears that up for you.
edit on 8-6-2021 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2021 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: sean
We agree the 4.11 nm is the 25,000 feet altitude of the aircraft.
The main problem with your drawing, if I understand it which I'm not sure I do, since it doesn't show the UFO at all like mine does, is you have the sensor aimed at 64 degrees below the aircraft axis, but it's 26 degrees, as read off the display here:


This is the tutorial for display interpretation from the TTSA version of the video, where they happen to refer to -22 degrees but in the initial target lock it read -26 degrees. This explains that the angle displayed is the angle of the sensor below the aircraft axis.


Go Fast: Official USG Footage of UAP for Public Release
So, you're not analyzing the -26 degrees shown on the display, you're analyzing as if the display showed -64 which it doesn't.

edit on 202168 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jun, 8 2021 @ 09:45 PM
link   
The camera is looking down at -26 degrees and only knows it's looking down at -26 degree's because it is calculating that based off the height of the plane which is the adjacent line and at a 90 degree right-angle to the land or sea below it. Since the planes camera has to calculate it's angle based off the height of the plane, this makes that line called the adjacent line and the calculation to find the hypotenuse is hyp=adj/cos(26) must be used. If the camera say's it's 26 degrees then the angle next to that 26 degrees must be 64 to add up to 90 degree to complete the square. Mick is deriving the height of the UFO by taking that 26 degrees and applying it to a hypotenuse of 4.4nm. That is flat out incorrect. If he wants to use sine then, he must use the 64 degrees in his equation I marked in green in order to get the correct height of the UFO. 4.4*sin(64)=3.95 Height of the UFO is 4.11nm - 3.95nm = .016nm and turns out to be true exactly what the pilots said it was. The object is low, well 972ft above sea level.

Edit: The sensor angle means just the angle of the IR sensor.
edit on 8-6-2021 by sean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2021 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: sean
The camera is looking down at -26 degrees and only knows it's looking down at -26 degree's because it is calculating that based off the height of the plane
The source I posted indicates the -22 or -26 degrees would be 22 or 26 degrees below the axis of the aircraft, which since the aircraft is in level flight, the axis of the aircraft would be a horizontal line at 25000 feet. The axis of the aircraft is not a vertical line as your interpretation suggests.

Do you agree the axis of the aircraft is horizontal at 25000 feet?

If yes, then why are you using a vertical line instead of a horizontal line for the 26 degrees?

If no, then I don't think you understand "aircraft axis" .



posted on Jun, 8 2021 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Yeah, of course I agree the plane is horizon axis at 25k ft, and the camera pointing down and the plane is level. Any turn of axis is going to change angles. That is why they fly flat while gathering information. You do realize that the altitude of the plane is gathered by the altimeter that shoots a vertical beam directly below the plane right? The angle of the camera is gathered by this information it has to.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: sean
I'll post again here why it is wrong... The information in the HUD shows the plane doesn't deviate at all very much from 25k ft, which equates to 4.11 nautical miles. The range that Mick uses is 4.4nm (hypotenuse) and the angle of the plane at 26 degrees and uses S=O/H. Now plugging in all that information you'll wind up with a 1.92nm like in his video. This is incorrect!!


That isn't the HUD, it's the ATFLIR display. The -26 is the angle of the sensor on the FLIR pod, not the angle of the aircraft. The sensor is looking down at 26 degrees from its horizontal. The sensor level is always 0, regardless of the angle of the aircraft. Even if the aircraft is at 90 degrees to the horizon, the sensor will show 0 if it's looking straight ahead. If it's looking down, it will be minus whatever the angle is to its 0. So, if the F-18 was at 90 degrees to the horizon, the angle would still be -26, because the sensor is angled 26 degrees "down" from its 0 point. The FLIR includes some information from the HUD, such as the artificial horizon and altitude, so if the pilot is looking down at the display, he still has basic information that he needs to fly the aircraft, without having to split his attention between the FLIR and the HUD.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Ok, I was about to say that in the first video I posted, the camera angle is still showing a display of an angle with nothing locked on as well. So it is gathering information from somewhere to determine that angle with respect to the plain, so altitude has to be calculated in there somewhere. I imagine a mix of horizon or vertical plain's the computer calculates all that. Problem is trying to interpret that all with this video with not very much to go on. The same can be said, that there will always be a vertical line at a right angle to whatever it was flying over in altitude under the plane. Which seems more accurate thing to use in determining the distance given the precise altitudes. Horizontal plain on the other hand is a different story, one slight move and no more right-angles and now angles become unknown. This Is where the altitude would play an important role to apply a calculation. However, all of that can become difficult as well as you can stretch that triangle out to infinity and get a whole bunch of mixed results. As an example I can punch in numbers with 26, 64, 90 and wind up with a crazy hyp of 9.47nm and base of 8.42nm and still have a leg of 4.11nm. I can also reverse my vertical formula into a horizontal formula and still come up with the same results that the ufo was low. LOL I don't know maybe someone out there can chime in more.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Ok so looking out @ a horizontal plain the camera is not locked on and it's still showing a -26 downward angle and I still used the height 4.11nm as a part of the calculation because you have to....

That is a triangle with a 8.42nm distance and down angle distance with a hypotenuse of 9.37nm!! That is a lot of distance. The camera is zoomed in a lot, but wow it doesn't even change it's zoom once it locks on either. Then at lock the object is 4.4nm. The ocean waves in the background seem pretty sharp in appearance being that far away. Hmmm, man that makes no sense, especially at 25k ft and an object at that distance you wouldn't even be able to see it. Unless, of course something tipped them off and/or this object is bigger than thought and they got it on radar. I think someone did say somewhere they estimated this object is 6-9ft approximately in diameter.



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: gnarkill1529


Wouldn't call it 'sour grapes' because I'm not unquestioningly buying the corporate media spin perfectly aligned with the CIA counterintelligence narrative - have to say the majority of researchers I respect aren't buying it either.

You do seem emotionally invested but have you actually looked into the birth of TTSA and the incredibly high strata of the CIA operatives involved?

Actually looked into all the highly irregular AATIP contradictions or the way Pentagon FOIA protocol was co-opted and laws changed?

There are so many aspects to all this over the last few years which simply do not add up (if it was organic) that I don't know what to say to you.. other than to read Skyhigh00's post again.




"There is absolutely reason to question everything and everyone involved"




Like it or not there are some extremely uncomfortable (and unequivocable) facts being presented in this video - certainly don't agree with everything (jiust like I don't disagree with everything in your post) but I guess my question to you is why are you not addressing them?



posted on Jun, 9 2021 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman

● The emergence of TTSA all but buried 70 years of UFO history by concentrating and prioritizing a single UFO case from 17 years ago.



Yes, funny how they did that.




new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join



viewport: 1280 x 720 | document: 1280 x 16435