Breaking BAASS, Assessing AATIP and Doubting Thomas ‘DeLonge’

a reply to: mirageman

And another thing, what makes you think they're TELLING THE TRUTH about anything, let alone FAKE ufos.

At what point do you believe a liar? Only when they lie about something that verifies your perspective?


As I wrote at the top:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive"

a reply to: gippo888

Are you really convinced that ufology is just that?

No.

I believe there to be some worth in investigating true anomalies and not having any preconceived notions. But ufology, in general seems to prefer endlessly speculating on speculation and performing all sorts of mental gymnastics to maintain the possibility that aliens are/were involved. Nothing ever gets resolved, and even hoaxes like SERPO and the Alien Autopsy are 'rebunked'.

Keeping an open mind means being open to the possibility (and more often than not the probability) that UFO cases do not involve aliens at all.

There were also testimonies like Fravor and Graves in the 1950s, same type of objects ... not CIA's U2

Yes, but military pilots were also found to be the most likely group to be prone to misperception by J.Allen Hynek.

In the last 10-15 years Ufology has also been politically exploited by the Russians.

Yes just like they meddled in the US election campaigns Brexit and Covid too. Then they invaded Ukraine and everyone hates Vladolf again.

Thought there was some very interesting content (and connections) in this new vid.

a reply to: peaceinoutz

At what point do you believe a liar?

That's the question.

You could get all the test flight records of the Oxcart and U2 and then match them against the Blue Book cases. But I doubt you think it's worth doing any more than I do.

a reply to: mirageman

No big thing.

My point is not about whether U2 flights or anything else was thought of as ufos, but whether they were deliberately done by the IC. Maybe or maybe not, but either or both are covered by the Robertson panel recommendations for the IC to manipulate ufology

a reply to: peaceinoutz

I'm with you on this one.

For every 10% of malfeasance the USG admits, there's the
other 90% of what they do, we have not caught them
doing, yet.

a reply to: mirageman

I agree, the journey to the truth will still be long ... unfortunately
Ufology is part of the conspiracy theme, for this reason it is used politically.
Maybe one day he will enter the world of science and we will have the answers

Following the ufology forums I saw the activity of the Russians, few people verify the sources.
In Italy many people have been manipulated by these mechanisms and some politicians have taken advantage of it ... but now the italians are changing, we have not forgotten what a war is
I think Europe is changed ...

Air Branch is the aviation wing of the CIA's Special Activities Division (SAD). Their role is to fly covert missions in support of CIA operations.

Air Branch - CIA Special Activities Division (SAD) LINK

This DJ video is quite good, nearly the entire thing;
just ignore a bit of woo about cayce/atlantis;
the rest is golden.

www.youtube.com...


Ok, here's the part about UFO researchers being prosecuted:

www.rev.com...

"Ronald Moultrie: (01:04:14)So one of the concerns that we have is that there are a lot of individuals and groups that are putting information out there that could be considered to be somewhat self-serving. We’re trying to do what’s in the best interest of one, the Department of Defense, and then two, what’s in the best interest of the public to ensure that we can put factual-based information back into the mainstream and back into the bloodstream of the reporting media that we have so people understand what’s there.Ronald Moultrie: (01:04:49)
It’s important because we are attempting as this hearing as has drawn out to understand one, what may just be natural phenomenon, two, what may be sensor phenomenology or things that were happening with sensors, three, what may be legitimate counterintelligence threats to places that we have or bases or installations, or security threats to our platforms. And anything that diverts us off of what we have with the resources that have been allocated to us, send us off in these spurious chases and hunts that are just not helpful. And they also help, well, they also contribute to the undermining of the confidence that the Congress and the American people have that we are trying to get to the root cause of what’s happening here and report on that, and then feed that back into our national security apparatus so we are able to protect the American people and our allies. So it is harmful. It is hurtful, but hopefully, if we get more information out there, we’ll start to lessen the impact of some of those spurious reports.Darin LaHood: (01:05:52)
So just taking that a step further, so that misinformation, false narratives, manufactured, so what are the consequences? Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us where people have been-Mr. LaHood: (01:06:03)
Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us, where people have been held accountable by this information or disinformation?Ronald Moultrie: (01:06:07)
I can’t give you any examples where somebody’s been legally held liable for putting something out there, but-Mr. LaHood: (01:06:15)
Well, I guess what’s the deterrent from people engaging in this activity?Ronald Moultrie: (01:06:20)
I don’t know. I don’t have that answer. That’s something that you’re welcome to dialogue with Congress, to talk about that with the members who help legislate those laws, to say what should be the legal ramifications that we could use to potentially hold individuals accountable, whether it be citizens or information that might be injected into our media by other forces or other countries, if you will."

Ref: www.rev.com...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: gippo888


I believe there to be some worth in investigating true anomalies and not having any preconceived notions. But ufology, in general seems to prefer endlessly speculating on speculation and performing all sorts of mental gymnastics to maintain the possibility that aliens are/were involved. Nothing ever gets resolved, and even hoaxes like SERPO and the Alien Autopsy are 'rebunked'.

Keeping an open mind means being open to the possibility (and more often than not the probability) that UFO cases do not involve aliens at all.

Well said.

The handful of cases I still find intriguing after all this time still catch my attention if there are updates - eg the 1994 Ariel case which is resurfacing due to a new documentary this month. In fact, UFO landings at schools (Westall, Broad Haven, Ariel) are fascinating due to the innocent perception and potential raw honesty of small children - although obviously that also needs to be balanced with possibilities and probabilities of natural human misperception.

You rightly stress how personnel in aviation (and law enforcement etc) cannot be relied upon to obviate human frailties in perception. Perhaps kids are MORE reliable!

I dunno, mate. Ufology seems a wasteland at present, the same old cases resurfacing anew despite many having been debunked aeons ago, but that's how this circus operates. NEWBIES are the food for the vultures, perhaps wide-eyed and eager for a couple of years before the inevitable 'brick wall' hits them, just as it does for every UFO researcher.

Ufology has a shelf life in terms of sustained interest, and it must be exhausting for you, MM, when you see threads such as the 1942 'Invasion Of L.A.' spring up YET AGAIN. Great for newbies, but for us veterans (2-3 years+ is enough to become a cynical veteran), it's all so...



PS: Hope Kev's okay, by the way. Hi Kev!

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Hi Mate!

Always nice to see you..

I hear you on 'UFO cases" I can't currently think of one
I'd want to discuss again.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: ConfusedBrit

Hi Mate!

Always nice to see you..

I hear you on 'UFO cases" I can't currently think of one
I'd want to discuss again.

Always good to see you, too. And no, I can't think of one, either - well, apart from the Ariel case which is doing the rounds again this week with new pics, although nothing particularly new has been added to the case.

As you may agree, if aliens are indeed interacting/observing us, it would be in a manner that would - ironically - be completely alien to our natural understanding - and I don't just mean on an inter-dimensional basis; possibly far, far more complex than even that notion. And ergo, almost impossible to verify or convey to the 'man in the street'.

PS: There was a time when Rendlesham was my raison-d'etre for being on ATS; which seems fairly silly with hindsight considering what an incoherent circus that became. However, as I said, an ATS newbie will have a FANTASTIC time before the rot inevitably sets in!

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

If it becomes a crime to research or discuss 'UFOs' in the
United States, we can get a head start and just stop
talking about it now (eyes roll).

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Your link seems to have expired or changed, Kev. So here's an archived one.

Congress holds historic open hearing on UFOs 5/17/22 Transcript

This particular passage is concerning. I am wondering to who and what is being referred to here too...

...Obviously, this topic of UAPs has attracted a lot of interest in people that are curious about this hearing today. As we talk about, and I would say there’s a lot of what I would call amateur interest groups that are involved in the UAP field, my question is when there are unsubstantiated claims or manufactured claims of UAPs or kind of false information that’s put out there, what are the consequences for people that are involved with that or groups that are involved with that?

There are certain bald and bearded folk who appear to be spreading 'manufactured claims' on social media, websites, podcasts, radio shows and even major news networks in the US. But that wouldn't appear to be 'amateur interest'.

a reply to: mirageman

Very interesting and concerning.

a reply to: mirageman

The link works perfetcty in the USA.. maybe
big brother wants different versions of 'the truth'
to be seen depending on where one lives ;-)

The more digital / integrated with the Internet
our lives become, soon 'reality' will be fully
editable at will, just like in '1984'.

On the one hand, there is the desire to put foward a 'threat narrative'
and to have complete narratie control, yet on the other hand,
you get stuff like this:

And speaking of videos, the biggest winner in this official exercise in transparency and accountability (without even being present!) was skeptic and Metabunk founder Mick West: the second and last video presented during the open audience was taken on board a Navy ship using an IR camera, which was originally leaked by filmmaker Jeremy Corbell, and promoted by him during every TV appearance he was a guest on, as ‘the best evidence’ the US government had on UFOs. Unfortunately for George Knapp’s protégé and director of Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers, Bray confirmed to the Congressional Committee what Mick West had been saying all along, much to the chagrin of UFO Twitter –the UFOs are nothing but drones, and their ‘pyramidal’ shape is the result of a distortion caused by the lens of the camera, commonly known as bokeh.

www.dailygrail.com...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Your link seems to have expired or changed, Kev. So here's an archived one.

Congress holds historic open hearing on UFOs 5/17/22 Transcript

MM….do you have a better link?

Here’s what I’m getting….



UPDATE: Now it just says this…….but not direct link to the transcript…….the link on the bottom goes to an never ending link of more links.



👽🛸☕️🍩

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I've no idea what's going on.

The live link is here : Congress holds historic open hearing on UFOs 5/17/22 Transcript

But that takes you to a "Broken Link" page for some reason.

Archived Alternative Link

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I've no idea what's going on.

The live link is here : Congress holds historic open hearing on UFOs 5/17/22 Transcript

But that takes you to a "Broken Link" page for some reason.

Archived Alternative Link

The alternative link worked……I generated a PDF for keeps on my pad. Thx! 👍🏼

Can it be read between the lines, that the UFO community may be “censored”(if I could use that word)…or worse…… if laws are passed to do so? At least in the U.S..???

From the transcript verbatim…….

……..”Darin LaHood: (01:03:28)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and want to thank the witnesses for being here today. Obviously, this topic of UAPs has attracted a lot of interest in people that are curious about this hearing today. As we talk about, and I would say there’s a lot of what I would call amateur interest groups that are involved in the UAP field, my question is when there are unsubstantiated claims or manufactured claims of UAPs or kind of false information that’s put out there, what are the consequences for people that are involved with that or groups that are involved with that?

Ronald Moultrie: (01:04:14)
So one of the concerns that we have is that there are a lot of individuals and groups that are putting information out there that could be considered to be somewhat self-serving. We’re trying to do what’s in the best interest of one, the Department of Defense, and then two, what’s in the best interest of the public to ensure that we can put factual-based information back into the mainstream and back into the bloodstream of the reporting media that we have so people understand what’s there.

Pause

Ronald Moultrie: (01:04:49)
It’s important because we are attempting as this hearing as has drawn out to understand one, what may just be natural phenomenon, two, what may be sensor phenomenology or things that were happening with sensors, three, what may be legitimate counterintelligence threats to places that we have or bases or installations, or security threats to our platforms. And anything that diverts us off of what we have with the resources that have been allocated to us, send us off in these spurious chases and hunts that are just not helpful. And they also help, well, they also contribute to the undermining of the confidence that the Congress and the American people have that we are trying to get to the root cause of what’s happening here and report on that, and then feed that back into our national security apparatus so we are able to protect the American people and our allies. So it is harmful. It is hurtful, but hopefully, if we get more information out there, we’ll start to lessen the impact of some of those spurious reports.

Darin LaHood: (01:05:52)
So just taking that a step further, so that misinformation, false narratives, manufactured, so what are the consequences? Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us where people have been-

Pause

Mr. LaHood: (01:06:03)
Are there legal consequences? Are there examples that you can give us, where people have been held accountable by this information or disinformation?

Ronald Moultrie: (01:06:07)
I can’t give you any examples where somebody’s been legally held liable for putting something out there, but-

Mr. LaHood: (01:06:15)
Well, I guess what’s the deterrent from people engaging in this activity?

Ronald Moultrie: (01:06:20)
I don’t know. I don’t have that answer. That’s something that you’re welcome to dialogue with Congress, to talk about that with the members who help legislate those laws, to say what should be the legal ramifications that we could use to potentially hold individuals accountable, whether it be citizens or information that might be injected into our media by other forces or other countries, if you will.

Mr. LaHood: (01:06:48)
In terms of DOD’s review and analysis in this field, is there a standard in place when it comes to UAPs? Is there any guidance you look to that’s codified in law or otherwise within DOD, that kind of sets out the standards for UAPs, and what to look for?

Ronald Moultrie: (01:07:05)
I think that’s part of what the group that we’re standing up know will be chartered to do. From my organization, we’ll be looking at policies and standards that we have to come to you and work with you to actually put in place, and promulgate across our government.

Mr. LaHood: (01:07:22)
Thank you. I yield back.”….


Read into it what you will….

👽🛸🍻