Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

@Thomas R Morrison ! You really need some cheering up around here and so I bring you most exciting news. Tom DeLonge just announced the official TTSA partnership with Hal Puthoff’s Earth Tech Advanced Propulsion laboratory to launch everyone To the Stars through Hal’s breakthrough spacetime metric engineering!!! This looks like your dream come true. Buy enough stock and I’ll bet you could be one of the first people to rocket out of here . .. or should i say, wormhole out of here. Well you know Einstein’s GR better than anyone else, so you provide the proper description.

To The Stars Academy of Arts and Science has formally entered into negotiations with Earth Tech Advanced Propulsion Laboratory to partner, acquire, and control the rights to Dr. Hal Puthoff’s BEAMED ENERGY PROPULSION (launch of satellites using high-powered lasers) and his breakthrough SPACETIME METRIC ENGINEERING (Dr Puthoff has been the Senior Physicist with the AATIP PROGRAM for 15 years under the Department of Defense and developed the physics and mathematics to bend space-time, also sometimes referred to as “anti-gravity”).

The enormous traction TTSA has gained in the past 6 months is unbelievable and I could not be more excited and proud. We have 6 vast TTS stories going into pre-production this year including Feature Film and episodic Television. We also have initiated major Intellectual Property Acquisitions within our Aerospace Division and expect tremendous growth to now follow. You may now own stock in our company, and can buy certified shares of To The Stars online through our SEC approved Public Offering at ToTheStarsAcademy.com.

 

[Realm]

I can help you here. Debunk this if you will, case Army Reserve Mansfield, Ohio with Maj. Larry Coyne as the main witness.

Done! To my own satisfaction, so that I can explain pretty much all the details. I can already promise that case won't ever be the same for you either once you have read my explanation. I'm currently drawing maps of it's trajectory, which is all wrong in that book I used as my source. Probably takes a couple of days before I can show the results, depending on how I find time for it. But hey, it was a mystery for 45 years, so I can let it live a few more days as one.

You need to read and watch several sources because journalists routinely under-report for brevity. 8.5 independent witnesses, 4 of them on duty military personnel.

Somewhat contrary to what I expected, those ground witnesses actually described the details pretty accurately. They just failed to understand what it actually was.

Beauty of the case is that it confirms some of Thomase's assertions, because UFO lifts Huey helicopter, with 4 passengers, up 1,500ft, which was confirmed by all 8 witnesses. Meaning that possibly there was a positive gravitational field under the UFO. Magnetism wouldn't work because helicopters are made of aluminum, which is not ferromagnetic.

The real beauty of that case is that it once again shows how easily people are mislead to invent exotic explanations like anti-gravity for something much more mundane. It also has a number of familiar elements that commonly mislead people, so it can become a textbook case of things that need to be considered in other cases as well.

I really have to thank you for bringing that case up, I didn't really remember much of it although I have read about it at some point way back. It has been a real enjoyment to see how, step by step, the pieces of the puzzle have created a clear picture that just happens to be quite a bit different than what those witnesses thought. Sure, it would have been much more exiting to learn it was aliens, but in any case, a solved mystery is better than an unknown.

But I actually have felt some sadness as well while seeing how a case that has been considered as one of the best for 45 years and part of many top 10 lists has crumbled in front of my eyes in two days. @IsaacKoi for example has documented the following shortlist of Jerry Clark:

The following year (in 1999), Jerry Clark posted a much shorter list of cases (see Footnote 3.19) which was subsequently taken by John Rimmer as being a list of Jerry Clark’s “best cases” (see Footnote 3.20). Jerry Clark stated: “For some convincingly documented cases which have stubbornly withstood the assaults of pelicanists, see The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed.,on …” and then listed the following cases:

(a) the Coyne CE2 (Case 25 in Isaac Koi's “Top 100” article),
(b) Portland County Sightings,
(c) RB-47 case (Case 63 in Isaac Koi's “Top 100” article),
(d) the Socorro CE2/CE3 (ee Case 5 in Isaac Koi's “Top 100” article).

First on the list of best cases for him, and took me 2 days... The so called evidence really isn't that good. Oh well, there's still the Nimitz incident, couldn't explain that. So there's still hope...

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Brother @Thomas R Morrison , do you realize that your hero Luis Elizondo believes that Einstein’s GR is wrong? You really need to straighten him out to save him and TTSA further embarrassment from his quite ill-informed statements about astronomy and physics that he made in that ill-fated NPR interview of Dec, 19, 2017

The future of your breakaway civilization is at stake, so please correct this matter at once.

I don’t envy your task, as Luis seems to have dropped off the media radar screen and probably gone into hiding. However, I seem to have the magic non-local touch and quantum timing when it comes to summoning Luis to appear on Paracast at close to a moment’s notice.

Previously I had queried: Where in the world is Waldo Elizondo? You can see that this comment is dated Feb 2, 2018
"Top questions and doubts about UFO whistleblower, Luis Elizondo "

and the very next day, Waldo, er, Luis, shows up on Paracast where I warmly welcom him and eagerly present him with my patented and intuitively “peer-remote-viewed” Forensic Anagrammatical Analysis of his name.
Who is Luis Elizondo? (re: DeLonge's TTS/AAS money making media empire)

Today I query: What ever happened to Luis Elizondo?

Perhaps he will show up tomorrow and then you can school him on Einstein’s GR.

=========

NPR interview, December 19, 2017
A Secret Pentagon UFO Program Searches For The Unexplained

Comment from Robert Sheaffer’s blog:
https://badufos.blogspot.com/2018/03/to-stars-releases-another-video-and.html

I heard Luis Elizondo on NPR and any scientific credibility he had evaporated as soon as he spoke.

First, when the interviewer stated that the closest star to our solar system was "like 6 trillion miles away, right?" Elizondo agreed, showing he doesn't know the distance to Proxima Centauri.

Second, he identified said star as "Proxima Alpha". Third, he then stated that Relativity could be wrong, intimating this could then allow for FTL travel and the ETH, and attempted to explain why it was wrong by invoking quantum entanglement. His explanation of quantum entanglement however was actually an oversimplified description of General Relativity.

I hope this will not be construed as a personal attack on Elizondo. My point is that he portrayed himself to the NPR audience as a credible science expert and then clearly demonstrated the contrary, putting the remaining parts of his story into question.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

OK so Elizondo is not a scientist. He never claimed to be right?

 

[MrBeliever]

No, in fact, he had a tendency to refer to himself as a soldier. He abandoned the academic track he was on to enroll in the army. He had to accumulate seniority in dangerous situations before he finally landed at a desk job. And if it was really him posting here, you've all seen his spelling. He probably couldn't write a report without assistance. Not that I'm calling him dumb, but a "science genius" just would not have gone down that same path.

When you listen to people like Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff, Garry Nolan talk about science, you can immediately tell they have a deep understanding of what they're explaining. Elizondo shows more of a "working understanding;" he needed to understand the fundamentals so he could do his job, but there's absolutely no scenario where anyone would ever need to rely on his scientific understanding of things. That's what the actual scientists working alongside him were for.

 

[SRL+]

No, in fact, he had a tendency to refer to himself as a soldier. He abandoned the academic track he was on to enroll in the army. He had to accumulate seniority in dangerous situations before he finally landed at a desk job. And if it was really him posting here, you've all seen his spelling. He probably couldn't write a report without assistance. Not that I'm calling him dumb, but a "science genius" just would not have gone down that same path.

When you listen to people like Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff, Garry Nolan talk about science, you can immediately tell they have a deep understanding of what they're explaining. Elizondo shows more of a "working understanding;" he needed to understand the fundamentals so he could do his job, but there's absolutely no scenario where anyone would ever need to rely on his scientific understanding of things. That's what the actual scientists working alongside him were for.

In other words, Luis is simply the messenger for scientists who elect to abandon the scientific method, attempting to turn theory into fact.

Silly ….

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

No, in fact, he had a tendency to refer to himself as a soldier. He abandoned the academic track he was on to enroll in the army. He had to accumulate seniority in dangerous situations before he finally landed at a desk job. And if it was really him posting here, you've all seen his spelling. He probably couldn't write a report without assistance. Not that I'm calling him dumb, but a "science genius" just would not have gone down that same path.

When you listen to people like Eric Davis, Hal Puthoff, Garry Nolan talk about science, you can immediately tell they have a deep understanding of what they're explaining. Elizondo shows more of a "working understanding;" he needed to understand the fundamentals so he could do his job, but there's absolutely no scenario where anyone would ever need to rely on his scientific understanding of things. That's what the actual scientists working alongside him were for.

Well then, that was the problem with that NPR interview: he was speaking way above his pay grade.

Since you see him as more soldier than scientist, then you might agree with Robert Sheaffer, who attended the UFO Congress, listened to Lue’s pre-recorded video talk and assessed him as . . .

Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe: A Skeptic at the 2018 UFO Congress, Part 4 (last)

What I thought was most interesting, he said his job is "Director of Security" at To The Stars Academy, protecting persons and things. So his background (such as it is) in managing UFO investigations is not directly relevant to his job. He is, in essence, their Bouncer.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Brother @Thomas R Morrison , do you realize that your hero Luis Elizondo believes that Einstein’s GR is wrong? You really need to straighten him out to save him and TTSA further embarrassment from his quite ill-informed statements about astronomy and physics that he made in that ill-fated NPR interview of Dec, 19, 2017

Misrepresenting the facts only reveals the depravity of your own pathological bias against this story, and in particular, this man. I just listened to this interview again, and he never said that GR is wrong – to the contrary, he explained how GR describes the metric curvature of spacetime, which is the key requisite principle for gravitational field propulsion.

He also cited quantum entanglement as an example of apparent superluminal/instantaneous interaction, which is a valid interpretation at this point, although other models also exist to explain it (retrocausality for example). He incorrectly used the word “communication,” which isn’t entirely accurate because no useful information is transferred when an entangled state collapses into an observable property (like spin), but that’s a minor nitpick.

I don’t envy your task, as Luis seems to have dropped off the media radar screen and probably gone into hiding.

No – he was interviewed about two weeks ago, after undergoing a brief hospitalization for surgery:

Previously I had queried: Where in the world is Waldo Elizondo?

You have the mind of a vindictive 12yo boy. That’s not a compliment btw.

NPR interview, December 19, 2017
A Secret Pentagon UFO Program Searches For The Unexplained

Comment from Robert Sheaffer’s blog:
https://badufos.blogspot.com/2018/03/to-stars-releases-another-video-and.html

“I heard Luis Elizondo on NPR and any scientific credibility he had evaporated as soon as he spoke.

First, when the interviewer stated that the closest star to our solar system was "like 6 trillion miles away, right?" Elizondo agreed, showing he doesn't know the distance to Proxima Centauri.

Second, he identified said star as "Proxima Alpha". Third, he then stated that Relativity could be wrong, intimating this could then allow for FTL travel and the ETH, and attempted to explain why it was wrong by invoking quantum entanglement. His explanation of quantum entanglement however was actually an oversimplified description of General Relativity.

I hope this will not be construed as a personal attack on Elizondo. My point is that he portrayed himself to the NPR audience as a credible science expert and then clearly demonstrated the contrary, putting the remaining parts of his story into question.”

Robert Scheaffer sacrificed any credibility on this topic by misrepresenting that interview, just as you’ve done here.

The host guessed “6 trillion miles” to that star system, and Luis Elizondo simply let it slide; he never agreed with that estimate (the pertinent exchange begins at 15:51 in that NPR interview for anyone who cares to check). But that’s within an order of magnitude – the actual distance is roughly 26 trillion miles, and nobody uses miles to estimate distances in interstellar astronomy so perhaps only a professional astronomer would know the distance in miles off-hand.

Luis Elizondo also corrected the host and specified “Alpha/Proxima” to describe the binary system.

He also never said that relativity is wrong – here’s where Scheaffer’s own scientific credibility takes a hard blow: GR permits FTL spaceflight via the Alcubierre metric. That was established back in 1994. And Mr. Elizondo never cited quantum entanglement as evidence that GR is wrong; he cited it as an example of superluminal interaction, which is correct – the effect is instantaneous over arbitrarily large distances, to within experimental error. He did get entanglement jumbled up with relativity in an awkward way, but he never claimed to be a physicist.

And he has never portrayed himself as a science expert.

So really all of Robert Scheaffer's remarks about this interview are demonstrably wrong, and anyone who listens to the interview instead of taking Scheaffer's warped interpretation of it as gospel (as you've done) can hear it for themselves.

In other words, Luis is simply the messenger for scientists who elect to abandon the scientific method, attempting to turn theory into fact.

Silly ….

Are you joking? Turning theory into fact is the bedrock of the scientific method.

Theory predicted the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and indeed that conforms to our observations. Theory predicted a gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun at twice the classical value, and so they tested that too and it thereby became a proven fact. And theory predicted gravitational waves, so physicists built huge laser interferometers to detect them, and those are now observed fact.

GR also predicts that the proper spacetime metric will produce reactionless accelerations with the prospect for superluminal spaceflight, so of course that’s a reasonable new theoretical prediction to test. The hurdle here is how to set up such an experiment in the lab: it’s a scientifically sound concept to test, and we should do so at the first possible opportunity. Neglecting to do so would be the unscientific thing to do.

 

[SRL+]

Are you joking? Turning theory into fact is the bedrock of the scientific method.

Theory predicted the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and so they set up an experimental observation that proved it as a fact. Theory predicted a gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun at twice the classical value, and so they tested that too and it thereby became a proven fact. And theory predicted gravitational waves, so physicists built huge laser interferometers to detect them, and those are now observed fact.

GR also predicts that the proper spacetime metric will produce reactionless accelerations with the prospect for superluminal spaceflight, so of course that’s a reasonable new theoretical prediction to test. The hurdle here is how to set up such an experiment in the lab: it’s a scientifically sound concept to test, and we should do so at the first possible opportunity. Neglecting to do so would be the unscientific thing to do.

What I’m speaking of is abandoning the scientific method in totality, jumping to foregone conclusions, presenting theories as facts, to the point of making a mockery of meaningful research. It’s a real turnoff for those who implement common sense. There are now hundreds of pages bearing this fact in relation to disclosure, where the vast majority of the public no longer care about the glorious day, and consider it as merely a fairytale.

 

[Hollywood Tomfortas]

Misrepresenting the facts only reveals the depravity of your own pathological bias against this story, and in particular, this man. I just listened to this interview again, and he never said that GR is wrong – to the contrary, he explained how GR describes the metric curvature of spacetime, which is the key requisite principle for gravitational field propulsion.

He also cited quantum entanglement as an example of apparent superluminal/instantaneous interaction, which is a valid interpretation at this point, although other models also exist to explain it (retrocausality for example). He incorrectly used the word “communication,” which isn’t entirely accurate because no useful information is transferred when an entangled state collapses into an observable property (like spin), but that’s a minor nitpick.


No – he was interviewed about two weeks ago, after undergoing a brief hospitalization for surgery:

You have the mind of a vindictive 12yo boy. That’s not a compliment btw.


Robert Scheaffer sacrificed any credibility on this topic by misrepresenting that interview, just as you’ve done here.

The host guessed “6 trillion miles” to that star system, and Luis Elizondo simply let it slide; he never agreed with that estimate (the pertinent exchange begins at 15:51 in that NPR interview for anyone who cares to check). But that’s within an order of magnitude – the actual distance is roughly 26 trillion miles, and nobody uses miles to estimate distances in interstellar astronomy so perhaps only a professional astronomer would know the distance in miles off-hand.

Luis Elizondo also corrected the host and specified “Alpha/Proxima” to describe the binary system.

He also never said that relativity is wrong – here’s where Scheaffer’s own scientific credibility takes a hard blow: GR permits FTL spaceflight via the Alcubierre metric. That was established back in 1994. And Mr. Elizondo never cited quantum entanglement as evidence that GR is wrong; he cited it as an example of superluminal interaction, which is correct – the effect is instantaneous over arbitrarily large distances, to within experimental error. He did get entanglement jumbled up with relativity in an awkward way, but he never claimed to be a physicist.

And he has never portrayed himself as a science expert.

So really all of Robert Scheaffer's remarks about this interview are demonstrably wrong, and anyone who listens to the interview instead of taking Scheaffer's warped interpretation of it as gospel (as you've done) can hear it for themselves.


Are you joking? Turning theory into fact is the bedrock of the scientific method.

Theory predicted the anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and so they set up an experimental observation that proved it as a fact. Theory predicted a gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun at twice the classical value, and so they tested that too and it thereby became a proven fact. And theory predicted gravitational waves, so physicists built huge laser interferometers to detect them, and those are now observed fact.

GR also predicts that the proper spacetime metric will produce reactionless accelerations with the prospect for superluminal spaceflight, so of course that’s a reasonable new theoretical prediction to test. The hurdle here is how to set up such an experiment in the lab: it’s a scientifically sound concept to test, and we should do so at the first possible opportunity. Neglecting to do so would be the unscientific thing to do.

Thank you, Thomas. Occult mission accomplished. Look for Luis to be here tomorrow.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

What I’m speaking of is abandoning the scientific method in totality, jumping to foregone conclusions, presenting theories as facts, to the point of making a mockery of meaningful research. It’s a real turnoff for those who implement common sense. There are now hundreds of pages bearing this fact in relation to disclosure, where the vast majority of the public no longer care about the glorious day, and consider it as merely a fairytale.

General relativity is a theory and every reputable physicist on the planet talks about it as a fact (within the realm of its applicability anyway), yet nobody I know finds that offensive to their "common sense." In fact "common sense" is a scientifically worthless standard. People used to think that it was "common sense" that the Sun went around the Earth, and that the rate of time was a universal constant.

So I don't see your point here at all. Perhaps if you cited actual examples, instead of simply expressing general/abstract outrage, I could make out your point.

I don't see the connection with the issue of disclosure. But having the director of an official Pentagon program that investigated this phenomenon, come out and basically say "yeah they're real, they don't belong to any terrestrial military inventory, and they fly circles around our most sophisticated jet interceptors," is probably about as close to disclosure as we're ever going to get.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

It's becoming a ongoing drama with the Tom Delonge and Luis Elizondo debates .
Instead get both individuals on the Paracast Show with Gene and Chris with reporter George Knapp?

 

[Realm]

Probably takes a couple of days before I can show the results, depending on how I find time for it. But hey, it was a mystery for 45 years, so I can let it live a few more days as one.

Here it is, as promised:

The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained

It ended up being long and pretty detailed, so I decided to start a blog for it and other materials.

I'll push that explanation elsewhere as well, so here's your chance to be among the first to see and give feedback of what I believe is the end of an almost 45 year old mystery.

I got somewhat tired of writing already, so I didn't bother to write down every detail I could have, and didn't spend much time on styling or editing. But I think the important stuff is there and you are free to challenge me if you can.

 

[Minny McNinny]

Here it is, as promised:

The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained

Excellent work, can't wait for you and Thomas to continue on your site with the "The Battle Of The Paracasters" lol

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Here it is, as promised:

The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained

It ended up being long and pretty detailed, so I decided to start a blog for it and other materials.

I'll push that explanation elsewhere as well, so here's your chance to be among the first to see and give feedback of what I believe is the end of an almost 45 year old mystery.

I got somewhat tired of writing already, so I didn't bother to write down every detail I could have, and didn't spend much time on styling or editing. But I think the important stuff is there and you are free to challenge me if you can.

This is so hilarious: about a week ago I wrote a really snarky post suggesting that we just rename The Paracast, "Parabunk," because the predominant mentality around here now is to emulate the popular debunking site MetaBunk - to ridicule/mock/criticize any and all ufo cases and related developments in the press. But I thought that suggestion would be too offensive and inflammatory so I opted against posting it.

And here you've actually gone and called your blog Parabunk. Haha.

In any case, it would be nice if we could actually try to stay on topic: the Coyne case has absolutely nothing to do with the Pentagon program.

 

[Constance]

It's becoming a ongoing drama with the Tom Delonge and Luis Elizondo debates .
Instead get both individuals on the Paracast Show with Gene and Chris with reporter George Knapp?

Nice idea, blowfish. But unlikely to happen given the general nature of what's been written in this forum about them, their colleagues, and their project for four months now. This seems to have occurred because a number of people participating in threads here re TTSA are unaccountably full of themselves, believing that because they know parts of modern ufo history and a few other disciplines they are in a position to pour scorn on anyone who claims to be bringing new information forward. It seems stupid to me to bite the hand that feeds us potentially new and significant information, much moreso to devour that hand and spit it out.

 

[Constance]

Working backward from the current end of the thread, saw a post indicating that Luis Elizondo 'will be here tomorrow'. In the forum or for an interview?

 

[Constance]

@CuCullen wrote: "@Realm. Not wanting to bog you down, but what is your take on these ostensibly anomalous cases: Father Gill 1959, 1976 Tehran, RB-47 1957.[/quote]

Honestly, I remember reading about those years ago, but not much else.

You "remember reading about those years ago, but not much else." This is poor stuff, Realm, unless you are in your dotage at this point. Both of those cases would have left an indelible imprint on your mind if you had read only one newsstory about each of them.

I would have to take a closer look at some point to be able to comment.

Yes, you really should take 'a closer look' at these and many more cases, documents, and analyses before you start trying to dismiss the entire modern ufo phenomenon.

 

[Constance]

It almost sounds like a prank for the new guy that went way too far.

It's also quite a coincidence that they had been talking about UFOs and even the governor had seen one. So how recently had that happened? Guess what had happened just a day before? Walter Cronkite made a news report about the sighting of that governor and others:

Apparently there was a bit of UFO hysteria at the time, with pranksters and all:

Space Invaders!

I'm betting that Walter Cronkite didn't want to read that newsstory but his producers ordered him to do so. Walter has never breathed a public word, to my knowledge, of the ufos he himself witnessed at a series of US atomic and nuclear tests. This was also the guy who told us every night for years less than half the truth about the US War in Vietnam, which CBS correspondents there knew up-close and doubtless reported in to their supervisors, though most of that didn't make the nightly years for a decade. Are you interested in any of these realities, Realm?

 

[Constance]

I think this hasn't been here yet:
Luis Elizondo said U.S. Navy is one (of a couple) sources for AATIP cases -- U.S. Navy says NOPE • r/UFOs
So the navy also gave a "no results" FOIA response for any data that would have come from them to the AATIP, and based on what Elizondo has said, such data should have existed. That's basically further indication of the insignificance of the AATIP.

You were expecting US Navy Intelligence to disclose anything to anyone publicly? According to Grant Cameron (personal communication years ago) Navy Intelligence had been studying ufos, and holding its knowledge close to the chest, well before the first wave of ufos in the skies over the US in 1947.