Breaking BAASS, Assessing AATIP and Doubting Thomas ‘DeLonge’

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: gippo888
But various fringe groups have seen ufology as a means to promote their own imaginative (or deluded) versions of reality. We have to entertain the magical thinkers, people promoting psychedelic drugs, new age religions, $cientology, metaphysics, LARPS, mentally ill people and outright charlatans. Add to that the machinations of intel agencies muddying the waters.

Yes ...
Perhaps it is impossible to clarify this confusion but I am convinced that we must try.
Public opinion does not understand the importance and will not understand it even when (and if) we manage to understand something.

So In ufology we are dealing with a huge number of different 'phenomena' and one explanation cannot explain all.

Yes, as Levenda says, the explanation is much, much, more complicated.
Probably ufology is not only about UFOs but, perhaps, UFOs are the key to understanding other phenomena (apparitions, ghosts, monsters ...).

I am personally convinced that the events related to the TTSA have highlighted that the Pentagon is hiding information.
Recent reports from the Pentagon let me know they have no plans to share information with the public.
I know you don't share this thought ...

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: gippo888

I think the problem here is trying to explain everything that ufology has become as one single "phenomenon".


So In ufology we are dealing with a huge number of different 'phenomena' and one explanation cannot explain all.

True, and in this particular instance of gross oversimplification- "lights in the sky = ET" is actually rooted in the logical fallacy; "because Humans have aviation lights on atmospheric craft- ET probably does too".

It's crazy.

Even when various PhD's are musing over what physics might occur in flying saucers, UFO's, Tic Tacs or UAP's - photon emission is usually theorised to be akin to black-body radiation (i.e a glow)- not FAA friendly configurations.

originally posted by: gippo888
a reply to: Arbitrageur
He's not lying, he's just screaming to be heard, he's using arguments recognized by public opinion.
This is ufological politics, the habit of old ufologists ...
I think the statements, which you have shown, are to be regarded in this way. You should talk to him... mirageman should talk to Elizondo too.

Bassett called me an idiot because I don't come to the same conclusion as him when I look at the same evidence. Not only is that a lie because I'm at the opposite end of the IQ scale from an idiot, but it's also rather insulting and doesn't exactly motivate me to want to talk to him.

By the way I don't call him an idiot, I know many people believe as he does that the paltry evidence of fuzzy blobs on video that appear to make impossible maneuvers (but actually don't) is somehow "proof" of ET. Lots of them aren't idiots because they disagree with me. Maybe they lack expertise in video analysis like Mick West, thunderf00t and some others such as myself have. But I think the biggest divide in the UFO community between believers and skeptics might be how they view eyewitness testimony. The believers say things like "it's good enough to convict someone for murder and you want to disregard it?". That thinking is flawed in so many ways, because it's not good enough to convict anybody of murder, by itself, now that even the US court systems recognize how wrong it can be and they are still releasing innocent prisoners locked up for over a decade who were put away wrongfully by eyewitness testimony, when we now can use DNA evidence to prove the eyewitness was wrong. But there are plenty of examples in UFO cases too which prove how wrong witnesses can be. The UFO in this case was said to be a close encounter according to most witnesses, it was close.



But we eventually figured out what they saw, it wasn't close at all, and ALL of the multiple witnesses were WAY OFF on the distance to the UFO!! Bassett seems to trust what they say when the evidence shows we should be skeptical of claims like the size, distance and speed of an unidentified object, including claims of impossible maneuvers. Why Bassett doesn't seem to get this, I don't know; maybe he's researching the wrong things and spending too much time on exopolitics and not enough time finding out all the ways eyewitness descriptions and memories can be distorted. And don't even get me started on his so-called "contactee" evidence.

But he says we also have videos. Yes we do, things like fuzzy blobs of objects too distant to recognize, and also some hoaxes, none of which show any definitive ET evidence.

As for mirageman or I talking to Lou Elizondo, I might have had an interest in that before Elizondo talked to Mick West. West has done some mathematical analysis using data shown on the display on the video showing the "goFast" story that the gofast video is "going fast" is a complete lie. West tries to engage Elizondo in a rational discussion about what the math shows regarding the false claim, but Elizondo makes the most ridiculous response that "I know things that you don't know, because I have security clearance, but I can't talk about them because they are classified". While that statement at face value is unquestionably true, I have to give Elizondo kudos for not lying when he says that. Elizondo spent 2 decades as a skilled professional liar, that was his job in counter-intelligence, and he managed to appear to counter West's request with that response. But you know what? His response, while true, just shows Elizondo has absolutely no interest in truth or discussing the truth. There is absolutely nothing he could possibly know that's classified that would change the math on the already publicly released and no longer classified gofast video.

For all I know the truth may be that the classified information that Elizondo knows that he can't talk about is that he already knows Mick West is right that the story about the gofast video showing a UFO going fast is a false story, and maybe Elizondo never left the payroll of his professional lying career and is still promoting such false stories in the greater interest of national security, to confuse the enemies or potential enemies of the USA. But we don't know what Elizondo really knows when he won't discuss the math and refuses to talk about things that he can't talks about which are classified. The only way I can see he would be breaking an oath to discuss the math on that officially released gofast video is if he was part of a conspiracy to spread false stories about it, otherwise, he should be able to talk about the math. That shouldn't be classified, the numbers are shown right on the display and the calculations can be done by a high school student.

Elizondo is also fond of trying to imply that because we don't know what these things are, they could be alien, especially when the gofast video ufo is said to be going 2/3 the speed of sound without any evident means of propulsion. Well, I can't prove it's not alien, but Elizondo's own form says the 3 videos show balloons etc (see 30 minutes in the video below) and West's analysis shows the behavior is perfectly consistent with a balloon (which also has no apparent means of propulsion by the way).

Doesn't it seem like Elizondo is scamming us?
Why would we want to talk to someone who is scamming us?

Here is the video where Elizondo talks to Mick West and it sounds to me like Elizondo is scamming us:

Starting at 36 minutes or so is when Elizondo starts his scam. Mick West is trying to focus on what the video shows, and his analysis and other people's stories are based on what the video shows or is alleged to show. Then Elizondo brings up radar data, which is not available and West is not asking about radar data, he's asking Elizondo to comment on what the video shows.

Fianlly at 50 minutes, they begin discussing the GoFast video and I allege that nothing else Elizondo knows outside the video invalidates the mathematical analysis of the video, so Elizondo is scamming us trying to imply otherwise. So why should anybody want to talk to Elizondo and be scammed more? (Unless he can provide some of this "additional information" he's keeping secret that he claims will affect the analysis, but I don't believe it, because the information needed for the analysis is all right there on the video.)

originally posted by: mirageman
So In ufology we are dealing with a huge number of different 'phenomena' and one explanation cannot explain all.

When we discuss UFOs or UAPs, I think of something in the sky whether Venus or a flying saucer or whatever.

Once people bring up the word "phenomenon", I can't help but think the discussion has shifted to a different topic, one which involves processes taking place in the gray matter between people's ears. Even with the UFOs or UAPs, the significance of that gray matter is underestimated by some people in terms of how reliable it is in perceiving unusual things accurately.

I think you've said, and I agree, that each UFO case is somewhat unique and it's not that helpful to generalize. For this reason I'm not a big fan of thinking something helpful will come from putting somewhat disparate UFO reports into a database and trying to analyze them that way. I seem to recall someone did that geographically one time and found that UFO sightings tended to occur more frequently near military bases. After seeing the "flare" "UFOs" promoted recently, one wonders if such a correlation might actually exist and if there may be good reasons for that. However, just as not all UFOs are Venus, they aren't all military flares either so I still think it's better to study each case on its own merits.

originally posted by: gippo888
Yes, as Levenda says, the explanation is much, much, more complicated.
Probably ufology is not only about UFOs but, perhaps, UFOs are the key to understanding other phenomena (apparitions, ghosts, monsters ...).

Again, I think these "other topics" are "gray matter" topics, not involving alien grays, or ghosts or monsters or other apparitions, but rather the gray matter between the ears. If there's a common thread between them, I suspect it's that certain people have been shown to be more "fantasy prone" in psychological evaluations, and among this fantasy prone segment of the population there can be increased perceptions of "phenomena" that the people may believe are external stimuli but they could be experiencing distorted perceptions of external stimuli, or in the case of abductees, actually dreaming and having dream hallucinations in a hypnopompic state of things that aren't even there at all, which has been documented for hundreds of years. The perceptions in this phenomenon are, interestingly, cultural. It is only relatively recently that the waking dreams are perceived as alien abductions, but in other cultures and in a historical context the same phenomenon was perceived differently as various monsters or demons.

Psychological aspects of the alien contact experience

Previous research has shown that people reporting contact with aliens, known as “experiencers”, appear to have a different psychological profile compared to control participants. They show higher levels of dissociativity, absorption, paranormal belief and experience, and possibly fantasy proneness. They also appear to show greater susceptibility to false memories as assessed using the Deese/Roediger-McDermott technique. The present study reports an attempt to replicate these previous findings as well as assessing tendency to hallucinate and self-reported incidence of sleep paralysis in a sample of 19 UK-based experiencers and a control sample matched on age and gender. Experiencers were found to show higher levels of dissociativity, absorption, paranormal belief, paranormal experience, self-reported psychic ability, fantasy proneness, tendency to hallucinate, and self-reported incidence of sleep paralysis.

That "phenomenon" topic sems like a gray matter topic, and as that paper shows, it is being researched in a more fruitful forum than Bassett's "exopolitics" based his apparently unfounded belief in the reality of the stories of abductees or contactees. By the way some of the early contactees said they were meeting with people from the planet Venus. We now know the surface there is hot enough to melt lead, another reason to be skeptical.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

LuLu…the consummate song and dance man…..he’s a tap dancer alright…


👽

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I invite you to be more understanding with Bassett ...
Bassett like Pinotti are part of the old ufology and, I think, are mystified by what is emerging.
About the famous videos, I've heard a thousand conflicting hypotheses ... honestly I would not give definitive opinions.
I think it's more important to have the full length videos ...
The problem is all here !!!
Has anyone at the Pentagon seen the entire footage??? YES
Maybe you should ask him...

I personally don't think the entire footage compromises national security. This is the usual communication strategy of the Pentagon: to trigger the confrontation between skeptics and believers (as Corso said).
The Pentagon reports clearly show that they have no intention of showing material.

Elizondo and TTSA what game are they playing??
Are they part of the Pentagon's communication strategy??
We can only hope not…
I think Elizondo is in an awkward position but I can't know if he's sincere, but time will allow us to understand and his position could become much more awkward.

I don't know you, but you behave like many others I've met on the Italian forums ...
I can only tell you that those footage, like others in the past, will get you nowhere…

a reply to: Arbitrageur
I'm sorry but you are not convincing !!!

originally posted by: gippo888
I think it's more important to have the full length videos ...
The problem is all here !!!
Has anyone at the Pentagon seen the entire footage??? YES
Maybe you should ask him...

West asked Elizondo about longer videos. He danced and gave a non-answer response.
Some others have said there are longer videos, and yet others have said at least the tic tac video does not have a longer version.

Regardless if there's a longer version of the gofast video or not, it makes no difference to the claim that Elizondo is deceiving us by claiming West's analysis is false. He can only analyze the version that's been publicly released, and it's a definitive analysis. If you forgot your high school triginometry, you can take a refresher course online and confirm it yourself, you don't need to depend on anybody else's hypotheses. And your analysis and West's ananlysis will show or show that we are being lied to, the GoFast UFO is not going fast, it's going at approximately wind speed just as a balloon would do.

Maybe there's a longer version of the video that shows it suddenly accelerating to half the speed of light, but even if there is that's irrelevant to my point that it's the publicly released version that Elizondo claims West is wrong about. A longer version is not in the public domain, so can't be analyzed, and that still wouldn't falsify West's claim that the public version only shows balloon or wind type speeds, so again we are being lied to about that video and Lou is not making any effort to correct the deception, which makes him part of the deception from my perspective. Talking to Lou after his Mick West interview seems pointless, when we now know he will urinate on your leg and tell you it's raining, to use an expression.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

show that we are being lied to, the GoFast UFO is not going fast,

A NASA panelist puts it this way…..about the GoFast object…

The bottom line is, I won't go into detail here, but if you can get the bearing and range to the target at two locations with known separation in time, you can figure out how far it moved.

And in this case, this object moved about 390 meters in 22 seconds, and that corresponds to a velocity of just 40 miles per hour

And so that's a velocity that's consistent with wind speeds at 13,000 feet.

So it's not our task to conjecture what this object is, but it's an example that illustrates the type of data needed to determine critical parameters that will help us identify such objects going forward.

Same NASA panelist…..

An important aspect of this here is that it's sort of midway between the jet and the ocean. So it's the ocean that looks like it's right behind it is actually 4.2 miles away. And this is our first indication that some or most of the motion that we've heard of the apparent motion of the object is in fact due to the rapid motion of the sensing platform, which is about 430 miles per hour in this case.

👽

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Sorry, my english is bad and I have very little gray matter between my ears
Play with others ...
I've played enough on the italian forums

a reply to: Arbitrageur

West asked Elizondo about longer videos. He danced and gave a non-answer response....

He's obviously talking in circles. Zondo says.around 24 mins mark,

.... Because we did not. After banging our heads against the wall for quite a few years on this type of stuff we realized that within the intelligence community we weren't we were, were, we weren't getting the answers we needed.

Nobody ...could tell us what was going on. So we said look why don't we go ahead try to get these videos put out to a broader audience maybe industry partners and whatnot to come out and take a look at these things and see if they can help us with figuring out what the heck these things are?

If they have ever seen anything like this before and maybe there's a rational explanation that...for the life of us we just can't figure out

Then around 10 mins later later when Mick West questions him about his [West's] own conclusion that the video shows nothing particularly extraordinary....

...your analysis is valuable, absolutely!

Did we conduct our own analysis absolutely!

Very comprehensive analysis, did we come up with the same conclusion you did? We did not.

And my question to you would be is you're looking at the video um are you certain that there's not other video or perhaps that there's also uh perhaps radar data that correlates with what the pilot testimony?

Which basically contradicts what he said earlier.

originally posted by: mirageman
Which basically contradicts what he said earlier.

Exactly. Before I saw that video, I was suspicious of Lou, but I tried to keep my mind open to the possibility he was legitimate. But that kind of contradiction, and avoidance of truth-seeking is what got me off the undecided fence about Lou and convinced me he was not acting in good faith.

originally posted by: gippo888
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Sorry, my english is bad and I have very little gray matter between my ears
Play with others ...
I've played enough on the italian forums

I can assure you I've never heard a credible rebuttal to West's analysis of the gofast video, and it's a fairly simple analysis using simple high school trigonometry.

I did hear one rebuttal by someone who claimed West's analysis was wrong, because West assumed the information on the display was correct, and he can prove it's not correct. So his proof is he shows something 5 feet from his webcam and another thing 10 feet away and says he can't get them both in focus at the same time, ok. Then he says that proves you can't get something 5 miles and 10 miles away in focus at the same time, which instantly showed that he had absolutely no expertise in photography whatsoever since millions of photographers can attest that claim is wrong, and in fact he was then bombarded with photos of things 5 and 10 miles away at the same time both in focus to prove he was wrong. So that rebuttal on alleged technical grounds completely and utterly failed and only served to discredit the person making the claim, leaving us with no credible rebuttal.

Lou's song and dance about the video doesn't even count as a rebuttal, when he asks West if there could be another video, which even if there was, that's not the topic.

But it's amazing that Elizondo can get people to believe him and that you think he's worth talking to. Now if he was no longer bound by his NDA and could tell me the truth about some good stuff, he might have some interesting things to say, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mate all this newly promoted 'stuff' is extremely easy to knock down.

No sh•t - just wilfully ignore all the historical stuff.

At the end of the interview Mick West proves to be reasonable and says that more data is needed.
it's ridiculous to quibble over details now, we've been doing it for 20 years without coming to any conclusions.
Maybe we have to ask ourselves why they extract those parts of the video but never published its.
What were they for?

At the end of the interview Mick West proves to be reasonable and says that more data is needed. it's ridiculous to quibble over details now, we've been doing it for 20 years without coming to any conclusions....

a reply to: gippo888

Mick is correct.

But the elusive additional data is what keeps ufology rolling on ever onwards.

If only we had the original wreckage found at Roswell in 1947, or the radar data from the Nimitz incident and longer videos. There's awlays someone else who knows more that someone else knows exists but is being held from the public.

Or is there?

As I just pointed out on another thread. If Zondo was so convinced by all his work on his hobby called AATIP. If it really produced something truly anomalous and weird was going on. If it then convinced Mellon and all the TTSA crew too . If this then helped them set up UAPTF and now AARO.

Then why is does it appear that UAPTF and now NASA and AARO are ignoring their data? Why does it appear they have started from scratch all over yet again? Ignoring everything Zondo collated and analysed?

originally posted by: mirageman
Then why is does it appear that UAPTF and now NASA and AARO are ignoring their data? Why does it appear they have started from scratch all over yet again? Ignoring everything Zondo collated and analysed?

You know MM……..that might be changing……Q pointed out the following from NASA SCIENCE- UAP

Statement of Task

The UAP Independent Study shall report on the following questions:

What types of scientific data currently collected and archived by NASA or other civilian government entities should be synthesized and analyzed to potentially shed light on the nature and origins of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)?

What types of scientific data currently collected and held by non-profits and companies should be synthesized and analyzed to potentially shed light on the nature and origins of UAP?

What other types of scientific data should be collected by NASA to enhance the potential for developing an understanding of the nature and origins of UAP?

Which scientific analysis techniques currently in production could be employed to assess the nature and origins of UAP?

Which types of analysis techniques should be developed? In considering the factors above, what basic physical constraints can be placed on the nature and origins of UAP?

What civilian airspace data related to UAPs have been collected by government agencies and are available for analysis to a) inform efforts to better understand the nature and origins of UAPs, and b) determine the risk of UAPs to the National Air Space (NAS)?

What current reporting protocols and air traffic management (ATM) data acquisition systems can be modified to acquire additional data on past and future UAPs?

What potential enhancements to future ATM development efforts can be recommended to acquire data concerning future reported UAPs to assist in the effort to better understand the nature and origin of the UAPs?

There are words written that denote past tensing ……as if to say they may look at previous work done.

Perhaps…Zondo’s work and others may be looked at after all.

👽

originally posted by: mirageman
Mick is correct.
But the elusive additional data is what keeps ufology rolling on ever onwards.

Perhaps because ufology is chasing something elusive ...
I invite you to reflect on everything and I think you will feel a strange sensation, like when you walk into a room and everyone is laughing and you don't understand why.
I've had this feeling for at least 10 years ... 10 years ago I was convinced to do research, now I don't know what we are doing.

If only we had the original wreckage found at Roswell in 1947, or the radar data from the Nimitz incident and longer videos. There's awlays someone else who knows more that someone else knows exists but is being held from the public.
Or is there?

From the events that transpired with the TTSA I got only one conviction: the Pentagon (intelligence) is hiding a lot of UFO material from us.
Everything else is just speculation but the speculations are looking like a sci-fi horror movie.
I am surprised and frightened by what has emerged in these years, I think it is necessary to get to the material of the Pentagon ... I think, I hope, they are wrong.

As I just pointed out on another thread. If Zondo was so convinced by all his work on his hobby called AATIP. If it really produced something truly anomalous and weird was going on. If it then convinced Mellon and all the TTSA crew too . If this then helped them set up UAPTF and now AARO.
Then why is does it appear that UAPTF and now NASA and AARO are ignoring their data? Why does it appear they have started from scratch all over yet again? Ignoring everything Zondo collated and analysed?

I have the same questions and a thought
Why did the Pentagon show materials to politicians in confidential meetings?
Now the public knows that politicians have seen material convincing enough to start this path of investigation by lobbying the Pentagon.
The Pentagon seems compelled to disclose something, yet its reports are very elusive, low-key… as if it wanted to cover it all up.

I think it's always the same game: with one hand they give us information and with the other hand they cover it up, they act like the phenomenon.
I don't think Elizondo will have a happy destiny. At best it will be forgotten ...

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
There are words written that denote past tensing ……as if to say they may look at previous work done.
Perhaps…Zondo’s work and others may be looked at after all.
👽

In my opinion they don't want to confront the past, it's too risky, they want to be in control
The past triggers controversy ...

originally posted by: gippo888

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
There are words written that denote past tensing ……as if to say they may look at previous work done.
Perhaps…Zondo’s work and others may be looked at after all.
👽

In my opinion they don't want to confront the past, it's too risky, they want to be in control
The past triggers controversy ...

Of course ……..the past will trigger more than just controversy…..the government will have to admit about their lie’s. There will be congressional hearings on who what when where and how….for decades to come.

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Perhaps. But as far as I am aware AATIP was not classified. Mainly because it was a private project ran by Zondo in his spare time. Which figures because Zondo could not convince Mellon, Kean and others by providing them with classified information. That would be illegal and unlike Bob Lazar, Zondo did not think going public protects him from prosecution.

Remember Mellon told the same Leslie Kean in 2016

...I highly doubt DoD or any other government agency is concealing UFO information. I participated in a comprehensive review of DoD's black programs and spent over a decade conducting oversight of the national foreign intelligence program, an almost totally separate world of secrets. I visited Area 51 and other military, intelligence and research facilities. During all those years, I never detected the faintest hint of government interest or involvement in UFOs.

Source

So if there is evidence then it has to be unclassified and it surely convinced Mellon to change his mind. Unless of course this is all a psy-op and they are trying to convince the public that the US once had some exotic material but lost it in a bureacratic SNAFU. Exonerating the government from a 70 year cover-up by disassociating it from it.

a reply to: gippo888

I don't have any doubts that the Pentagon covers up and lies to the public. But I remain unconvinced that the United States military could be the only organisation on Earth to harbour the secret of alien visitation. I think it's more likely the military is paranoid about letting out what it knows and even worse, what it doesn't know.

I think it's always the same game: with one hand they give us information and with the other hand they cover it up, they act like the phenomenon.

This continuous policy of promotion and denial is what enables the military to hide secret testing and use UFO reports as a method to do so.