NYT article, follow up interview.

A follow up interview with Leslie and Ralph was just posted on Project Unitys YouTube page.

If you weren't happy with the article, or felt it left out some vital points,
Check out this excellent interview.



I just finished listening to it.
It covers a lot of information, and even gives some insite into things to come.
It’s not a hype piece by any means.
It answers questions.
Ones that were left out of the official narrative from NYT

Listened to it as well. My take-away is that people who know little certainly do speak as if they know a lot. And it is not helpful. Very insightful on how the editorial process works.

a reply to: schuyler

Very.
Especially liked how they said It hurts an article, when a source starts hyping it up on social media, giving up other sources, before the Article even hits.
Which is exactly what happened with this NYT piece.

Thinking about other NY Times stories for the past few years give me pause.

I have been expecting an alien invasion just before the election. The Liberals have run out of super hyped topics. This is just about the only thing left.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: schuyler

Very.
Especially liked how they said It hurts an article, when a source starts hyping it up on social media, giving up other sources, before the Article even hits.
Which is exactly what happened with this NYT piece.

It's probably the liberals themselves.

a reply to: Flesh699

Possibly.
But on Twitter, there was this dude UFOJoe, who was non-stop, like every 2 minutes posting some hyped up, ramblings about the upcoming article.
No joke, dude seemed like he was in the midst of Some sort of a full blown, psychosis Attack.

a reply to: Macenroe82
I do think this is part of the process. I think the next president will
Be the one to have the first meeting or introduce an alien to the world. I also feel that this has been in the works for years and I do also think the Democrats don’t want Trump to get the credit for the biggest discovery of mankind. I am neutral on politics.

a reply to: Macenroe82
I do think this is part of the process. I think the next president will
Be the one to have the first meeting or introduce an alien to the world. I also feel that this has been in the works for years and I do also think the Democrats don’t want Trump to get the credit for the biggest discovery of mankind. I am neutral on politics.

originally posted by: pizzaphace
a reply to: Macenroe82
I do think this is part of the process. I think the next president will
Be the one to have the first meeting or introduce an alien to the world. I also feel that this has been in the works for years and I do also think the Democrats don’t want Trump to get the credit for the biggest discovery of mankind. I am neutral on politics.

I think this is the best troll job from a user with not enough posts to PM another — forget the 10 years you’ve used to get to 17 posts — and puts a perfect bow on this nothing burger 🍔

Bravo. Seriously

originally posted by: pizzaphace
a reply to: Macenroe82
I do think this is part of the process. I think the next president will
Be the one to have the first meeting or introduce an alien to the world. I also feel that this has been in the works for years and I do also think the Democrats don’t want Trump to get the credit for the biggest discovery of mankind. I am neutral on politics.

I think the aliens do not want to negotiate with a psychotic and dangerously inept Trump so they are waiting for Biden's election. They also want to steer clear of the cowardly and corrupt Republican Party. I am also neutral on politics.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: schuyler

Very.
Especially liked how they said It hurts an article, when a source starts hyping it up on social media, giving up other sources, before the Article even hits.
Which is exactly what happened with this NYT piece.

They didn't mention UfoJoe by name but people seem to think he's one of the people they are referring to.

It sounds to me like the article is talking about some of what Robert Sheaffer wrote about just over 2 years ago, but that didn't get much hype since it's not on the New York Times.

The interview made a big deal out of how valuable their witness Eric Davis was to bringing the story mainstream, but I don't see how anybody who is familiar with his history thinks of him as mainstream. I mean, maybe he did have a poltergeist follow home home from Skinwalker Ranch, and maybe poltergeists are real as Eric Davis said, but there's certainly no scientific evidence for that and the concept has zero credibility in mainstream science.

The interviewees said they had more they could have written about, but they had a 1000 word limit. Anybody who wants to read more, can read Sheaffer's story from 2 years ago:

Bigelow's Researchers disclose Poltergeists and UFO Crashes

Davis also claimed that the government had a crashed UFO recovery program until 1989, when its funding was cut, in spite of its success in recovering UFO crash debris. AATIP was supposed to re-initiate the Crash Retrieval Program, but did not get funding for that.

Sheaffer is no dummy, and he sees through that self-debunking claim of Davis:

(In reality, the potential payoff from studying genuine alien UFO artifacts would be so high as to justify practically any expense to obtain them.)

Exactly, in other words, what Eric Davis says doesn't sound the least bit plausible if it was actual alien debris.

But if the alleged alien crash debris was what his former Boss, Hal Puthoff, talked about, then we can see why the funding may be cut, if it's not really alien. Read what Puthoff says about the provenance of the alleged "alien" sample:

It was sent anonymously to talk show host Art Bell. The fellow claimed to be in the military. He said that this sample was picked up in a crash retrieval, and so he sent it by email. So what does that mean? Chain of custody non-existent. Provenance questionable. Could be a hoax. Could be some slag off of some foundry floor or whatever. However, it was an unusual sample, so we decided to take a look at it.
-Hal Puthoff

So, this is why I think the NYT article focuses on their "star witness" Eric Davis because he really does talk about a "successful" UFO crash retrieval program and they can print a story about him saying that without lying or stretching the truth. But when you dig into the details to see Eric Davis is not a credible source, the NYT article suffers as a result because of them confirming that yes, he is the source. Have you folks read about his "research" and I use the term loosely, failed to find any hard evidence at Skinwalker Ranch, and former employees at the ranch also attest that the approach they observed didn't seem rigorous to them? Maybe that poltergeist that was following Davis kept him from concentrating?

One of the more interesting things Davis said on Coast to Coast was that a poltergeist apparently followed him home from Skinwalker ranch. The poltergeist phenomenon is "real," he said, and is closely related to the UFO phenomenon. Some people are more "receptive" to this than others, he explained. (Newsweek had earlier reported, "Pentagon's Secret UFO Program Investigated Poltergeist Connection to Alien Mystery.")

The New York Times doesn't seem to be picking up on the poltergeist angle, do they? Not mainstream enough?

In the OP interview, they mention another source, Lue Elizondo, who said there were photos of the UFOs over Washington DC in 1952, but there weren't so I can't trust him, and the interview talks about their third witness Harry Reid backpedaling. That is hard for me to understand because he retired from politics, right? So is someone pushing back on him as they speculate in the interview video, or did Reid himself reconsider his own comments and he wanted to make sure people understood he wasn't talking about "little green men" as they mention in the interview.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

When it comes to Reid's back peddle, before listening to this interview, I thought our ageing friend Reid, may had had a moment of speaking cavalier to these two, or was misquoted to help sensationalize the piece.

But after listening to Leslie and Ralph both say they don't know why he claimed he didn't say those exact words,
I think Reid did get spooked by how it looked on print and tried to retract the comment.

Leslie and Ralph rely on their credibility to be trusted to do their job and to be able to get high profile people to comment on such topics.
With a topic that is still considered fringe by a majority of the Times readers, I don't feel Leslie and Ralph would set out to Sensationalized the report. I think they were very careful to only use what was given to them.

As for Davis...
Yeah he has said some out there stuff.
Yet does he hold a TSC? I honestly don't know.
But If that's the case, there's a reason for it.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
But after listening to Leslie and Ralph both say they don't know why he claimed he didn't say those exact words,
I think Reid did get spooked by how it looked on print and tried to retract the comment.

That's not what they said in the interview!

They said the quotes from Reid were never challenged, or changed, and the quotes stand, so presumably those were his exact words and he didn't dispute it, according to Leslie and Ralph.

The other two things they talked about were that their interpretation of Reid's quotes WAS challenged, and they changed that part of the story, not his quotes. I'm having a hard time finding the exact details of those changes in print but they are discussed in the interview.

The other thing they mentioned in the interview was Reid's post on social media which seemed to backpedal, which I did find in print:

Tweet from Senator Harry Reid

I have no knowledge—and I have never suggested—the federal government or any entity has unidentified flying objects or debris from other worlds. I have consistently said we must stick to science, not fairy tales about little green men.

My take is Reid read the NYT article and saw how he was associated with Eric Davis and his "“off-world vehicles not made on this earth.” statement, and his tweet was to clarify he is NOT on the same page as Eric Davis on this "not made on this earth" claim.

The wording of Leslie and Ralph still tries to infer "alien" with their "unknown origin" statement. That doesn't rule out Earth as the origin...but some people will not read it that way and might think "unknown origin" means alien. Reid is making sure people know that's not what he means, though he's not ruling that out either. I guess "unknown origin" is "unknown origin" like UFO is UFO but some people think UFO means alien too.

As for Davis...
Yeah he has said some out there stuff.
Yet does he hold a TSC? I honestly don't know.
But If that's the case, there's a reason for it.

According to Knapp he does, if the link below is correct, though I don't know where UfoJoe got this Davis quote from, it could use some context.

www.ufojoe.net...

“You’re going to be lied to because that’s the rule.”

~Astrophysicist Eric Davis, Ph.D.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The part about Reid and the next day Tweet I was referring to is addressed at 25:56 to 28:49 by Leslie.

Maybe I worded my statement wrong?
Or the context was taken wrong.
But yeah, it's definitely in the interview.

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The part about Reid and the next day Tweet I was referring to is addressed at 25:56 to 28:49 by Leslie.

Maybe I worded my statement wrong?

Yes, this is the statement that's wrong:

originally posted by: Macenroe82
a reply to: Arbitrageur
But after listening to Leslie and Ralph both say they don't know why he claimed he didn't say those exact words,

This is what Ralph said at 26 minutes:
"The quotes that are in the paper have remained unchanged and unchallenged"

So assuming that's a true statement, Reid never "claimed he didn't say those exact words".
It was the spin that Leslie and Ralph put into what THEY said in trying to interpret his exact words, that he objected to, and was changed, for that part of it.

Regarding his tweet, again to me he seems to be distancing himself from the Eric Davis "alien" claims which doesn't relate directly to what Reid said but from being associated with Davis in the same article, where readers might infer all the sources for the story are on the same page. It seems like they are not all on the same page, was the message I got from Reid's tweet.

I see Kevin Randle was blogging about more credibility problems with Eric Davis last month:

Dr. Eric Davis and Admiral Thomas Wilson - Redux

I bring all this up because, a while back, Dr. Davis had suggested, on Coast-to-Coast, that the Del Rio UFO crash was real. That crash is based on the information of a single witness who had claimed to be a retired Air Force colonel, a former Air Force fighter pilot, and a veteran of the Korean War. I explored all this at length in a posting on this blog that you can read here:

kevinrandle.blogspot.com...

Given that the Del Rio story is a hoax, and the lone witness to it has been less than honest about it, this does cast a shadow over the credibility of Dr. Davis. I mean, if he truly had inside information, he would have known the Del Rio crash was a hoax.

Kevin also says Davis wasn't replying to his or other e-mails and that was last month. I'll bet Davis has a very full e-mail in-box now with lots of people asking him lots of questions.

originally posted by: coursecatalog

I think the aliens do not want to negotiate with a psychotic and dangerously inept Trump so they are waiting for Biden's election. They also want to steer clear of the cowardly and corrupt Republican Party. I am also neutral on politics.

If you think the democrats are any less cowardly and corrupt than the republicans, you ain't neutral!!!

This is the video both NYT reporters asked be taken down before they did the story.

Jay from Project Unity said he was contacted by the NYT and asked to remove the video 30 days ago.

The person being interviewed wants to remain anonymous and goes by Mr X.

For myself, im personally not convinced the Wilson notes are real.

But it’s evident that some people certainly do.

originally posted by: coursecatalog

originally posted by: pizzaphace
a reply to: Macenroe82
I do think this is part of the process. I think the next president will
Be the one to have the first meeting or introduce an alien to the world. I also feel that this has been in the works for years and I do also think the Democrats don’t want Trump to get the credit for the biggest discovery of mankind. I am neutral on politics.

I think the aliens do not want to negotiate with a psychotic and dangerously inept Trump so they are waiting for Biden's election. They also want to steer clear of the cowardly and corrupt Republican Party. I am also neutral on politics.

Oh! now I get it, even though I also think Trump is psychotic and dangerously inept..and basically a piece of shiite, I am neutral on politics..especially since I am not living in the US, I live where the information box says so...even so, I get two messages...exactly the same telling me I am a, Troll, and a 'baiter' from someone who is most definitely, very political and partisan....so, all you have to do then is say you are politically neutral, and the content is fine.
I am happy with that!


page saved.