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

originally posted by: mirageman
“The Pentagon appears unaware what UAPs/UFOs are and the threat they pose. But they had alien saucers in a hangar at Area 51”

As you already know, the second part cancels out the first. They know what the UFO’s are and that they pose no threat. But they are not going to tell the public that because that would be admitting the ET reality. And they can’t do that.

There is substantial evidence rebutting every MJ-12 complaint, proving that each point in the documents could be legit. ET is here, the government knows it and they set up a committee to deal with it. Then they put in place a few more things.

Now the National Security Act may have been wallowing around for awhile but it was Roswell that forced it into being, which Truman signed off on immeadiately (2 weeks) after the crash. The NSA pushed the National Security Council and Central Intelligence Agency into effect. The NSA also formed the United States Air Force. Roswell got all these dominoes moving.

The United States National Security Act was created on the 18th of September, 1947.
The United States Central Intelligence Agency was created on the 18th of September, 1947.
The United States Air Force was created on the 18th of September, 1947.

All on the same day, two months after the Roswell incident.

Speaking of MJ-12, the 18th was the day after your buddy, and MJ’s leader, Jimmy Forrestal became Secretary of Defense. Gee, isn’t that special.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Now the National Security Act may have been wallowing around for awhile but it was Roswell that forced it into being, which Truman signed off on immeadiately (2 weeks) after the crash.

Nonsense. The National Security Act had nothing to do with Roswell.

Truman supported the unification of the armed forces even before 1944 elections. But Army and Navy did their best to oppose it. It took until January 1947 to reach an agreement. Truman sent the bill to Congress on 26 February. The Senate held hearings over the course of two months and reported its bill on 5 June and finalized it on 9 July. The House committee reported its bill a week after the Senate. It took multiple days to iron out the differences. The final bill was sent for the president’s signature on 26 July.

originally posted by: Willtell
Even though I have many problems with TTSA, at least, so far, other than TDL, they do maintain a somewhat sober ufo view

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I don't find TTSA's view on UFOs sober at all when they keep misrepresenting the three videos they posted on their website. For example, TTSA's "Unidentified" episode hypes the "gofast" UFO as traveling at 2/3 the speed of sound when it's traveling more like 20-40 mph as explained here, so that doesn't seem sober at all, it seems flagrantly overhyped based on analysis which is either nonexistent, falsified, or extremely incompetent, take your pick.

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

The "Go Fast" UFO looks like it's going really fast, but a simple analysis of the data available in the video shows that it is not. So, the History Channel's "Unidentified" show was wrong and "To the Stars Academy" was wrong. Not only that, but they are either the worst 3D analysts in the world, or they knew it was wrong a year ago and just kept going with it because it's more interesting that way.

It's complete BS, but what would TTSA have if they didn't have BS?

In a way it represents a large part of the UFO "phenomenon"= misperception, because we are easily fooled and can't tell what we are looking at, including pilots, since it sort of does look like it's going fast even though it's not. But when you have a video that can be analyzed in detail like that, the misperceptions can be sorted out, if TTSA had any intention of being truthful, which either they don't or they are incompetent buffoons who can't do trigonometry.

a reply to: mirageman

What is that last image from? Seems somebody(or somebodies) were trying to concoct an alien “threat” and disinformation...using actual info on real aliens/UFOs/Encounters.

Makes sense that people will take an imaginary threat seriously, if you sprinkle in real info at the same time.

a reply to: johnthejedi24

What is that last image from? ...

Apologies I forgot to add the second link. It comes from this blog : ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com... which has meeting notes from the ATP group in the 1980s.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

originally posted by: mirageman
“The Pentagon appears unaware what UAPs/UFOs are and the threat they pose. But they had alien saucers in a hangar at Area 51”

As you already know, the second part cancels out the first. They know what the UFO’s are and that they pose no threat. But they are not going to tell the public that because that would be admitting the ET reality. And they can’t do that......

I think you will find that those words were not used in the post you are quoting

So now you are even misquoting posters on here.

Where is your reliable source for the Nixon quote?

Your argument about Roswell and the National Security act is laughable? There was already a Director of Central Intelligence in Jan 1946. How long do you think it takes to re-organise the US military and intelligence services after WWII? A couple of weeks?

Your MJ-12 statement is perfectly fact free. Even most ufologists consider they are fakes.....

Sort yourself out. You are making yourself look dishonest now.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Willtell
Even though I have many problems with TTSA, at least, so far, other than TDL, they do maintain a somewhat sober ufo view

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I don't find TTSA's view on UFOs sober at all when they keep misrepresenting the three videos they posted on their website. For example, TTSA's "Unidentified" episode hypes the "gofast" UFO as traveling at 2/3 the speed of sound when it's traveling more like 20-40 mph as explained here, so that doesn't seem sober at all, it seems flagrantly overhyped based on analysis which is either nonexistent, falsified, or extremely incompetent, take your pick.

"Go Fast" UFO Video Explained?

The "Go Fast" UFO looks like it's going really fast, but a simple analysis of the data available in the video shows that it is not. So, the History Channel's "Unidentified" show was wrong and "To the Stars Academy" was wrong. Not only that, but they are either the worst 3D analysts in the world, or they knew it was wrong a year ago and just kept going with it because it's more interesting that way.

It's complete BS, but what would TTSA have if they didn't have BS?

In a way it represents a large part of the UFO "phenomenon"= misperception, because we are easily fooled and can't tell what we are looking at, including pilots, since it sort of does look like it's going fast even though it's not. But when you have a video that can be analyzed in detail like that, the misperceptions can be sorted out, if TTSA had any intention of being truthful, which either they don't or they are incompetent buffoons who can't do trigonometry.

Arti...Arti...Arti...
The greatest military NAVY in the world declared that the objects in the videos are unidentified aerial phenomena....not balloons....not birds.... etc..

Yet you defer to Mick West and his armchair analysis...Hmmmmm???!!

a reply to: celltypespecific

Did the greatest military NAVY in the world declare that unidentified aerial phenomena can not be balloons....birds.... etc?

Where can we find the list of what does and what does not count as unidentified aerial phenomena?

Did the greatest military NAVY in the world declare that the TTSA interpretation of the videos is correct?

Goooood Morning!!!

Happy Friday!!!!

Its such a beautiful day

a reply to: celltypespecific

Every day is beautiful.

originally posted by: Baablacksheep
a reply to: celltypespecific

Every day is beautiful.

Indeed....one of the few "secrets" in life is the realization that every moment of consciousness, every breath you take is truly beautiful and miraculous...

originally posted by: celltypespecific

Arti...Arti...Arti...
The greatest military NAVY in the world declared that the objects in the videos are unidentified aerial phenomena

Which could also include:

... balloons... birds... etc...

Because they're unidentified. Well, by the navy at least.

Yet you defer to Mick West and his armchair analysis...Hmmmmm???!!

His Metabunk site may be a rather dry, miserable, unexciting humour-free zone (humour is even outlawed by West's T&Cs; what a fun geezer he is), but he has every right to state his opinion.

Mick West has at least flown a plane; I doubt you have flown your armchair.

originally posted by: celltypespecific
Arti...Arti...Arti...
The greatest military NAVY in the world declared that the objects in the videos are unidentified aerial phenomena....not balloons....not birds.... etc..

Arbi is fine, I don't go by Arti.
I thought they said they don't know what it is. Mick West doesn't claim to know what it is for sure either, but from his analysis balloons can't be ruled out. So there's no disagreement about it being unidentified, but if you've analyzed the video yourself, and if the Navy has done the same, how can you or the Navy rule out balloons based on your own analysis? Mick has shown his work, show your work to correct his error if there is one, but otherwise I hear nothing but hot air and ignorance.

Yet you defer to Mick West and his armchair analysis...Hmmmmm???!!

I don't, and why would anybody who knows trigonometry have to rely on someone else's trig calculations? Anybody who knows trig can do the calculations themselves. Now that may be beyond the capability of TTSA, and if it is, then as I said that would make them a bunch of incompetent buffoons. However, I am not sure that's the case either. TTSA may actually have someone on their staff who knows trig and figured out it's not going fast, but they decided to continue to mislead us because they are producing a TV series and it's more exciting if they go with what it looks like (going fast), instead of what the trig shows (going at balloon speed).

Here's a question for you? Why does the form "allegedly" releasing the video mention balloons? Is the form a lie? Actually the form may be a hoax of some sort, or not, but the form is unsigned so certainly doesn't look like a valid form. This is the crap we are fed, see "Subject Area" which says the "Gofast, Gimble, and FLIR" videos contain "UAV, Balloons, and other UAS".



The Gimbal and FLIR videos don't seem to show balloons, but how can you rule out a balloon in the Gofast video? Did the Navy really say they ruled out balloons? If so, where is the Navy's analysis? Mick West provided the details of his analysis which you have not refuted, nor has the Navy. So it seems to me like you're the one relying on someone else's word instead of actually analyzing the video for yourself, not me and not Mick West. If you analyze it for yourself, you don't have to take anybody else's word to put limits on the speed, the display has plenty of information to do that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I don't find TTSA's view on UFOs sober at all when they keep misrepresenting the three videos they posted on their website.

I’m talking relatively, in comparison to the Dave Wilcock types.

I’m sure you realize I’ve criticized TTSA as much as anyone as my sentence indicated.

So, it’s a comparison analysis.

Also, if you would have quoted the whole point you would have seen I said for the exception of TDL.

Precision is the key...!

a reply to: Arbitrageur

how can you or the Navy rule out balloons based on your own analysis?

...Because maybe they have seen the longer videos....

Let's agree to disagree on this point....but I truly admire your hyper-focus and persistence on this point..

I apologize for triggering you. It was not my intent.
I will think about your comments.
Happy Friday

originally posted by: celltypespecific
...Because maybe they have seen the longer videos....

Talk about moving the goalpost...what about the Gofast video we have from TTSA?

Let's agree to disagree on this point....but I truly admire your hyper-focus and persistence on this point..

On what basis? You accepting someone's word about a longer video you've never seen? Or you're disagreeing that a balloon can't be ruled out on the gofast video, and if so what forms the basis for your opinion on that? Certainly not your own analysis based on trigonometry?

I apologize for triggering you. It was not my intent.

I'm not triggered but I'm a little annoyed with all the misrepresentations taking place, and then people defending the misrepresentations and attacking the fact and science based with no facts and no science and some claim about different video that the public hasn't seen. Even if there is a longer video, that doesn't invalidate the facts and analysis in Mick West's video, and that a balloon can't be ruled out based on that part of the video. If there's another part of the video that rules out a balloon, where did the Navy say that? They didn't, right? And the release form says balloons, right? It seems you have no real basis in fact for your beliefs, which seems very un-scientific for a guy like you who claims to be some sort of scientist.

a reply to: Willtell
Yes I agree relatively speaking TDL is the furthest off the deep end at TTSA and I did note your comment about that, but hopefully you also noticed my objection focused on the example of the unidentified episode misrepresenting Gofast which is certainly not the sole work of TDL, so the lack of objectivity must run through at least the part of the organization involved with that show. Elizondo talking about non-existent photos of the UFOs over Washington DC in 1952 isn't exactly sober either. So yes there are relative differences, but I'm just not sure sober is a word that's I'd use to describe anybody at TTSA, not even Chris Mellon and his photo of a shiny UFO that is "clearly not a US experimental craft, so whose is it?".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes I agree relatively speaking TDL is the furthest off the deep end at TTSA and I did note your comment about that, but hopefully you also noticed my objection focused on the example of the unidentified episode misrepresenting Gofast which is certainly not the sole work of TDL, so the lack of objectivity must run through at least the part of the organization involved with that show. Elizondo talking about non-existent photos of the UFOs over Washington DC in 1952 isn't exactly sober either. So yes there are relative differences, but I'm just not sure sober is a word that's I'd use to describe anybody at TTSA, aside from TDL.

Of all the commentators on these videos, I have been the most critical. In fact, I’ve said outright they are being hyped to stir up the pot. Not only that, they are IMO very weak and not at all unique in terms of ufo events.
Also, they have been passed around long before TTSA supposedly exposed them. I think, and have said, besides the exposure and critique of them by mm and others, beyond that, they should be ignored.

a reply to: Willtell
Right, and I appreciate that. So given that stance, it seems a little surprising to me you would use the word "sober" for TTSA even in relative terms, that's all I was saying.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It seems you have no real basis in fact for your beliefs, which seems very un-scientific for a guy like you who claims to be some sort of scientist.

As I previously stated....let's agree to disagree on this point.
Its the weekend...lets have good cheers

a reply to: celltypespecific

So despite your claim to be a scientist. You are either incapable or too lazy to attempt to make the calculations Arbi challenged you to try for yourself? And you also don't agree that a balloon could be something unidentified?

Don't be embarrassed it happens to the beast of people.....