Luis Elizondo sat down for a deep dive interview with George Knapp day before yesterday.

Gortex

Youtube will not string the interview parts together on any page I have been to they run.

I am clicking Youtube from here on each one and it goes to a page that has no other parts of this interview.

Telling.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

As a former player in the USA arena you are dead on and yes we are all fodder. That even includes all guys and gals who work in military or INTEL positions within the USA government. They will take out anyone. Plus they can sanitize the entire internet by wiping out prior articles written by WSJ or AP that were published back in the day. Did you know that CNN destroys all videotapes after 7 years? That's what they told me when I called them to buy the video interviews of me that were featured internationally on CNN back in the day. I thought that was strange. Oh, I still have a VHS tape of the CNN interviews that I haven't played in decades as I need to have them preserved and transferred onto a DVD. I called CNN to simply get all of the interviews in cased I missed some while at home with my VHS recorder.

a reply to: Justoneman

I am going to comment before I watch his videotapes and then after.

Hes either still on the USA payroll as a disinformation or pre release specialist or he in fact did leave to speak his peace on UFOs. If its that latter he went public so he buys some time for himself as in they don't take him out. Not just yet and that could be why hes stringing it along. Based on my actual real life experience in a similar much much much lessor important subject with DOD hardware I will watch and comment as the Feds all use the same handbook and game plan across all agencies. Today is 20Jan2020 9:17AM EST. I will now watch the Luis Elizondo and George Knapp videos and comment later. As just some guy and that's about all I can do as my interaction with USA is more than 99% of an average USA citizen.

UPDATE: 20Jam2020 at 11:18AM EST

1. All of the videos on www.mysterywire.com will not play. Why?
2. I then, one by one had to type in youtube + cut and paste each video title in by hand and search. Then the youtube video would appear. One by one. Viewership of each video was low simply because YouTube is burying the Videos and they are currently unavailable on mystery wire. Strange.

3. I worked with DOD hardware and Engineering for years so I know the Uncle Sam jargon. To me the guy is possibly on loan from the USA to TTSA for "soft disclosure". He seem credible and legitimate to me. So why is he bypassing all UFO groups [Part I]. Because the are working for the nondisclosure people in USA government, have nothing to offer or too much trouble to deal with. So just ignore and go around them.

The only way that he can be stopped is if they make him disappear or the Feds seize his pension. Since he went public with good relations it tells me the white hats have his back along with Robert Bigelow. What we are seeing is a soft disclosure along with a plea for help from guys like us. Meaning if you have something share it with them. You own the rights.

In my opinion hes above board and credible. That crap people write to discredit him along with the joker from The Black Vault is the other half that wants to maintain control of humanity. You may want to thank President Trump for allowing this soft disclosure.

He's above board.

This will probably be the entire next season of Ancient Aliens and regurgitated on all the hoax show's on the Travel channel. It seems like ATS is the sole source of their material.

a reply to: StratosFear

Hoax? Really? What is a hoax is that you claim to be affiliated with a fighter pilot. Well maybe a balsa wood model. You don't follow his diction as you claim to be government or military.

You don't write the write or talk the talk to be government or military. He does to me.

Tank a dump for all of us.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: Springer

What a load of......

Unavailable to Europeans

No. Just EU.

I think it's unhealthy for the government to have to carry around this baggage they are forced to hold on to. I think we can get passed the notion that these craft exists. Now we need to answer the who, what, when, where. These sightings will continue as they have. They have no control over that. The truth is inevitable, we know this the government knows this. The world needs this type of technology. However, that window of opportunity is closing fast.

a reply to: Waterglass


Referring to the multiple shows on TV(specifically the Travel channel) that perpetuate fake sightings, not referring to anything posted in the OP. Not speaking negatively about Elizondo, but how the TV shows embellish stories and make it hard to believe. I never said nor intended the meaning that I think this is a hoax.

Your apology is accepted

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: The GUT

But I'm also curious, since you have run across some of the personalities associated, if you have any theories as to what they might be up to. Again. I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by "again."

I've recently written down a 'treatment' of ONE reason [even if no ETI is involved] some intelligence agencies would act in the way we all see them acting. This does NOT disprove any of the interesting hypotheses circulating.

JimO FAQ:


Videos such as recent missile launches in Russia and China and from around the world [and off it], over decades of observations, demonstrate how a collection of public observations [especially with video imaging] can provide insights into measurable characteristics of very interesting aerospace activities of highly classified or commercially private nature.

The most fertile hunting ground for such worldwide reports over the last seventy-plus years has been the UFO literature, both print, oral, and now internet. Secondary sources might include astronomy club newsletters.

Any national intelligence service anxious to appraise a potential adversary’s aerospace capabilities would therefore obviously seek hints in UFO reports and elsewhere, along with traditional espionage practices.

Such an agency would also realize that an adversary’s recognition of the intelligence value of such generally-disregarded public reports could result in imposing censorship and thus a loss of such opportunistic insights.

Any national military security service would recognize the symmetric informational vulnerability of their own highly secret aerospace activities if observed, misinterpreted, and reported as UFOs, if recognized overseas.

As a defensive measure, such an agency would have to keep tabs on domestic UFO reports to detect any leakage of unrecognized clues to its own secret projects that it was responsible for protecting, that an insightful adversary might be able to exploit, in order to take steps to reduce [or scramble] easy observability.

Consequently, a thorough national security program would have an excellent two-part justification for actively collecting and thoroughly assessing worldwide “UFO reports”, regardless of any potential additional stimuli.

Deliberate observable performances to calibrate actual accuracy of such reports might be a prudent measure.

Deliberate activities to spoof adversary observers or evaluators might be feasible, even if merely to advertise to other intelligence agencies that such an information window was more unreliable than naively assumed.

To preserve the value of such opportunistic unrecognized information resources, the agency’s justifiably-intense interest in such reports would necessarily have to be kept secret, or disguised, or misinterpretable.

...and here we are.

Nice...someone who does know something or at least has come to a rational analytic conclusion. Let me add to the excellent statement quoted above.

...and here we are...TTSA launching a data gathering tool/app for UAP. TTSA will then use, by their own statement, human/machine (pseudo AI) analysis to develop a data-set that will supposedly “filter out” bad, unwanted, or irrelevant UAP event reports/data that are vacuumed-in, supposedly creating an ideal data-set of “real events” ripe for analysis.

There is a serious problem with that logic. Scientifically, there is no PROOF (zero...none) of alien UFO visitation at any time in human history. How then do “scientists” create a data set “parameter” to separate “real events” from false positives? That is literally impossible to do regarding objects that are unproven and unknown. It becomes a matter of personal opinion regarding “woo” as to what that data parameter would be...unless....unless you were targeting, lets say...known aerial machines. Then the base-data parameter is easy to set via knowns and analytical projections of knowns to probable-unknowns.

This leads me to surmise that the real use of the TTSA UAP data-app is military data gathering and analysis regarding known or suspected foreign aerial assets (in our airspace and world-wide, since the app could be launched anywhere) and/or monitoring the public exposure of our own classified test craft to ensure future secrecy if an exposure has occurred.

Notice, the data being “ingested” will supposedly be partly provided by public input using the TTSA app. Yet those same data contributors (the civilian populace) will likely NOT be privy to the data itself, or analytical outcomes. That data will all belong to TTSA privately (bigelow style), despite the need of public commitment to data contribution (in addition to pseudo-AI vacuuming-in raw data from open sources like the web).

That kind of privacy makes sense if the data harvested was for military use, and that data might also expose our own military classified aerial projects if it were available for perusal by foreign governments.

Given that it is IMPOSSIBLE to determine quality data-set parameters from unknowns and unprovens (except by choosing random personal-woo parameters that will cherry-pick in a self-fulfilling-prophecy-style only those woo-results that fit), and given that they want the public to provide the data when the public may not be given access to the data, there are hints of other games in-play here.

I have no problem with government monitoring our airspace for threats. What would bother me is being sold on a fake UFO religion (with our mystic priestesses being none less than TTSA) just to collect data for the military (and private corporate profit). Wouldn't it be easier and more fair to the populace, rather than using unnecessary deception, to simply state, “we want you to enter data on aerial unknowns you see so we can analyze it for foreign military threat”? Using a UFO lie to set up domestic psyops, even for noble outcomes, is abhorrent imo.

If there are alien UFOs and all of this is not just military plasma-tech, drones, etc. (possibly from many nations?), then this database will be full of sightings of known tech/phenomena, coupled with reports reflecting the everlasting human experience of the Unknown...UFOs, spirits and sasquatch included. In that case (of non-human UFOs) it is unlikely proof will ever be found from aerial data sets...just like the objective reality of these anomalies has never been proven throughout human history, no matter how real they seem to be as experienced within the human psyche.

As has already been well-stated on this thread elsewhere, these anomalous “things” may exist out there in some reality physics will soon uncover, or even more likely they will remain forever an aspect of the human psyche always with us, and always just beyond our reach.

a reply to: Markword
You good sir are spot on!
As the only difference now looking from Oliver North talking with Congress and elaborating: "I can neither confirm or deny them accusations."

Will be a private entity will carry the "baton" of silence.

Bit of irony really; the very same people who in there youth fought to enlighten the masses, will now be the very same who keep it from the masses in taking it to there deaths.

All one can say from here: Prove me wrong!

a reply to: Markword

What needs to happen is an extensive analysis of existing, historical reports based on specific data points. Living witnesses should be reinterviewed based on those specific data points, which would be difficult since many are now dead.

You cannot deny that there are way too many reports of a similar nature for them all to be "woo-related". I consider reports by pilots, civilian and military, to be important and, generally, unimpeachable.

We're missing something significant in the research. I have no idea what it is, but there is something we haven't thought of in the proper analysis of all the data.

a reply to: Springer
Thank you

originally posted by: Markword
….As has already been well-stated on this thread elsewhere, these anomalous “things” may exist out there in some reality physics will soon uncover, or even more likely they will remain forever an aspect of the human psyche always with us, and always just beyond our reach.

"Always
just
beyond
our
reach…"

… MAY be a clue. [Here's a new version of an essay I've posted elsewhere before]

It's always necessary to keep eyes and mind open to unexpected phenomena rather than disregarding reports because "it can't be true". That's the way scientific knowledge has surged forward [in fits and starts and detours, to be sure]. It's entirely plausible that a new observation-based candidate hypothesis might involve ETI, current or past. Equally plausible is to imagine any ETI that exists could be as detectable by us [or not] as they desire ['absence of evidence is not evidence of absence']. So far the track record is unbroken, from rainbows to lightning to volcanoes to disease and so forth -- every attempt over thousands of years to attribute an observed but non-understandable phenomenon to a non-human being has failed, refuted by the advances in human science. But as our senses sharpen, at the advancing limits of our perception, there remains a retreating borderland of ambiguity and uncertainty that still provides plenty of puzzles, thrills, and temptations to try once again to attribute the observation to that classic but consistently failed model of 'others'. There's always next time, and someday..?


So the latest sky-watching 'situation awareness' instruments detected readings that look anomalous? Uh, hasn't that actually been the pattern for decades? New instrumentation comes on line, it detects strange stuff, but as familiarity with the behavior of the instrumentation accumulates, the anomalous readings fade away? Again and again with each new generation of sensors?

Perceptive observers of the UFO scene over the last two thirds of a century have noted a tell-tale feature of the evolution of reports – their nature has been changing, keeping uncanny pace with the progress in human observation and detection technologies. As with dragons and sea serpents of half a millennium ago, they always seem to lurk just at or beyond the limits of clear human vision, with ‘Here be dragons’ on the maps obediently retreating in synchronization to the inexorable advance of human knowledge.

These new ‘UFO reports’, still fragmentary and inadequately documented, nicely fit this time-tested pattern – some anomaly is detected at the limits of sight [that by all means needs to be understood] but isn’t clear enough to unambiguously establish its non-explainability. If the reports truly represent an authentic autonomous phenomenon, they would have been invisible to human observers until recently, just as the UFOs of the 1940s and 1950s, if they really were caused by actual phenomena, would today be exhaustively documented by the vastly improved observation capabilities of humankind.

But.
They.
Aren’t.
Instead, year by year, the ‘old UFOs’ fade away just before the advent of new technologies [that would have unambiguously documented them] come on line, to be replaced by a new flavor of ‘anomalies’ that precisely match the limits of vision of new technologies.

This is a powerful indication that the phenomenon derives its existence NOT from some stand-alone phenomenon, but directly FROM being at the limits of human detection and recognition. As an observer-based rather than reality-based phenomenon, its apparent existence derives from the range – and limits – of human perception. That perception and its limits are real, but the apparent stand-alone stimulus does not have to be, and never did. Such a postulated stimulus [ETI technology] could well exist and be responsible, but may not be mandatory.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: Markword
….You cannot deny that there are way too many reports of a similar nature for them all to be "woo-related". I consider reports by pilots, civilian and military, to be important and, generally, unimpeachable.
....

Many people agree, and books have been written on that very theme.

But pilots are NOT 'trained observers'. Instead, they ARE 'trained survivors, and why that makes a difference:

Several years ago, I described the ‘questionable foundation’ of Leslie Kean’s book as the naïve and unverified faith in pilot reports. She has insisted the UFOs show intelligent purpose based on their perception of the nature of their witnesses, since they behave differently when seen by military pilots than when seen by civilian pilots [when the more common-sense explanation is that different pilots report observations in terms of what they expect from their own different experience bases]. The data archives she touts as ‘unexplainable’ pilot sightings [such as the French ‘Weinstein Report’] can easily be shown to contain numerous pilot misinterpretations of unrecognized space and missile activity around the world, so who knows how many other prosaic explanations were never found by the ‘investigators’? See here:

web.archive.org...://www.nbcnews.com/id/38852385

Finally watched it and have to say that was pretty disappointing.

This after the whole skinwalker thing. Gonna avoid recommendations involving peoples 'friends' from here on out I think.

a reply to: JimOberg

When I say I trust pilots it's because you cannot be an idiot who is clueless about your environment and be a pilot, especially in the military.

Respectfully,

CT

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: JimOberg

When I say I trust pilots it's because you cannot be an idiot who is clueless about your environment and be a pilot, especially in the military.

Respectfully,

CT

One inconvenient fact is that a few years after Project Blue Book closed J.Allen Hynek made an analysis of Project Blue Book cases



If someone has something better or more accurate data with a larger sample size then present it. If not then that's the best we've got. It shows that almost 9 times out of 10 military pilots get it wrong when trying to identify what they consider unexplained phenomena in the sky.

originally posted by: mirageman

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
a reply to: JimOberg

When I say I trust pilots it's because you cannot be an idiot who is clueless about your environment and be a pilot, especially in the military.

Respectfully,

CT

One inconvenient fact is that a few years after Project Blue Book closed J.Allen Hynek made an analysis of Project Blue Book cases

What is inconvenient about that?

As far as I know, military pilots and aviators are the only people trained in the discipline of aerial target identification.
If that training is useless, counterproductive or taught to the wrong people, somene should let the Pentagon know. A lot of time, money and effort could be saved, if that's the case.

a reply to: Sublant

It's inconvenient to all the people who laud pilots as trained observers and should know what they are seeing in the sky Subby. So claim pilots would know a "real alien UFO" when they see one.