• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring


MrBeliever

Paranormal Maven
When I look at the two most public faces of TTSA, Elizondo and deLonge, I see Luis as deliberately clueless to the outside UFO community and Tom as deliberately contemptuous of those “outsiders.”
What also seems deliberate is the reason Elizondo was selected to join the program in the first place. He repeated several times that his role was to bring a "counter-intelligence perspective" or "counter-intelligence support." It's almost like his job in the context of AATIP was to ascertain that his skill set was not needed.

Where his skill set would in fact come in handy is quite problematic: He is a trained liar of the highest caliber. He would be the ideal person to act as the public face of a "half-lie" disclosure on behalf of the government (we are beginning to put the pieces together, and we totally don't have working flying saucers in storage, and we never lied to the public). But he would also be the ideal hero of disclosure, as an advocate of the people's right to know, using his counter-intelligence skill set to help wage an information war of sorts against the DoD he knows so well.

The ambiguity is palpable. But is it deliberate?
 
Cool Beans, @Realm ! I managed to copy your image and just posted it and you text for Garry & Co on TTSA FB.

I also added this comment to Garry, since the 100 ft altitude cannot be validated from the focus of the ocean waves.

Garry, as it turns out, the issue of focal plane is better addressed by considering the Hyperfocal length of the lens, which tells the Depth of Field for the object along with its “Acceptable Circle of Confusion.”

Those considerations show that any object between the altitude of your value = 100 ft above sea level up to an altitude of half the jet’s altitude, i.e. 12,500 ft, will be in as good a focus as the focus of the ocean waves themselves. Therefore, your objection is moot, since the ocean waves themselves, an object at 100 ft, and an object at 12,500 ft will be in just about equal focus.
Garry Nolan just replied:

Ok-- I can accept that. I will run the numbers if I can get to someone at Raytheon who can confirm or not the depth of field issue-- I need to see the calculation. I want to know the capabilities of the Raytheon optics- though I expect push back for "operational capabilities" reasons. I understood all of Paracast's & Metabunk's math last week-- which is why I am trying to chase this information down. I was trying to get a sense of the focal depth (depth of field). So-- still waiting on the numbers. That said, given the discrepancy about what the video "numbers" provide-- "belief" in what is in the video now relies only on visual claims by the pilots and (unseen-- even by me) data from radar. The video information says the object "can" be mundane. The good thing about science is-- ego aside-- you can switch conclusions (or rule out things) as the data shows. I am convinced at this point (and have been for a week) that something in the video data is not comporting with other claims.
Nice article about hyperfocal distance. Interesting.
https://photographylife.com/.../hyperfocal-distance...

EDIT: Garry just added this comment. Looks like he’s been convinced.

Ok, I don't need Raytheon's optics numbers. I see how the object can be in focus with the ocean. Will reserve a modicum of skepticism about it until I can get info back from a pilot I know. But thanks for the info!
 

Realm

Paranormal Adept
Garry Nolan just replied:

Ok-- I can accept that. I will run the numbers if I can get to someone at Raytheon who can confirm or not the depth of field issue-- I need to see the calculation. I want to know the capabilities of the Raytheon optics- though I expect push back for "operational capabilities" reasons. I understood all of Paracast's & Metabunk's math last week-- which is why I am trying to chase this information down. I was trying to get a sense of the focal depth (depth of field). So-- still waiting on the numbers. That said, given the discrepancy about what the video "numbers" provide-- "belief" in what is in the video now relies only on visual claims by the pilots and (unseen-- even by me) data from radar. The video information says the object "can" be mundane. The good thing about science is-- ego aside-- you can switch conclusions (or rule out things) as the data shows. I am convinced at this point (and have been for a week) that something in the video data is not comporting with other claims.
Nice article about hyperfocal distance. Interesting.
https://photographylife.com/.../hyperfocal-distance...

EDIT: Garry just added this comment. Looks like he’s been convinced.

Ok, I don't need Raytheon's optics numbers. I see how the object can be in focus with the ocean. Will reserve a modicum of skepticism about it until I can get info back from a pilot I know. But thanks for the info!
Excellent, he is starting to accept mathematical facts. The next question is, what will the TTSA (he is advising) do? Will they correct their incorrect information? After all, they are making these explicit incorrect claims what the video supposedly shows:
GO FAST is an authentic DoD video that captures the high-speed flight of an unidentified aircraft at low altitude by a F/A-18 Super Hornet ATFLIR forward-looking infrared system.
The unidentified vehicle appears as a white oval shape moving at high speed from top right to lower left of the screen flying very low over the water.
2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE

Maybe you should ask him if he is going to advice TTSA to admit their mistakes?
 

Realm

Paranormal Adept
Top 10 bird flight altitudes:

Andean Condor- 15,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

White Stork- 16,000 ft. approx. 3 mi.

Bar-tailed Godwit- 20,000 ft. approx. 4 mi.

Mallard- 21,000 ft. approx. 4 mi

Bearded Vulture- 24,000 ft. approx. 4+ mi.

Alpine Chough- 26,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Whooper Swan- 27,000 ft. approx. 5+ mi.

Bar-headed Goose- 29,000 ft. approx. 6- mi.

Common Crane- 33,000 ft. approx. 6+ mi.

Ruppell’s Vulture- 37,000 ft. approx. 7+ mi.
Getting back to the question of the possible species of the possible bird, a bit of googling indicates there probably isn't that much data about the flight altitudes of most birds. That list above gives some idea of the kind of birds that are most likely to fly at 4 km or higher. Here's the kinds (of relatively large birds) I collected from a few sources:

vultures,eagles,swans,storks,cranes, ducks, geese, swans

Basically most of those high altitude records are known because some unfortunate bird was sucked into an airplane engine at that altitude, or some mountaineers saw birds (or their remains) high up in the mountains, or someone attached some tracker to a bird or few of some species. There has been radar and thermal imaging surveys on the migration altitudes, but those do not generally reveal the species, at least not for those that are high up. They also cannot be identified visually from that high up. There's some research on how birds choose their migration altitude based on the wind conditions, and the typical range of suitable winds extends to 4km.

If only we had a better estimate of the actual size. Even though we know the FOV, it's hard to say how much the video compression, image processing, tracking, vibrations and other movement etc. soften the apparent size and how the orientation, feathers, interaction with the airflow etc. affect the resulting picture. It's just that it's so tiny blob that every pixels counts. The apparent diameter on the longest axis seems to be about 1-2 meters even if stretched quite a lot towards the soft edges (even enough to hide some of it behind those tracking bars), but I believe 1-1.5 meters is more likely. Something like a mallard is probably a bit too small, but it's hard to be sure about that either.
 
Excellent, he is starting to accept mathematical facts. The next question is, what will the TTSA (he is advising) do? Will they correct their incorrect information? After all, they are making these explicit incorrect claims what the video supposedly shows:


2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE

Maybe you should ask him if he is going to advice TTSA to admit their mistakes?
OK I will. Also, Paul Scott Anderson suggested I contact Bruce Macabee and so I did, sending him a FB Friend request and asked him to join the scrum on the TTSA FB page, where he is getting somewhat pummeled.
 

Realm

Paranormal Adept
I just noticed something most seem to have missed: Go Fast and Gimbal didn't happen 16,5 minutes apart, they happened only 10 minutes apart (591 seconds).

The timestamps at the bottom are actually minutes and seconds without a separator. You can see that in the Gimbal clip. The timestamp goes from 5259 to 5300.

Go Fast ended with timestamp 4254 and Gimbal begins at 5245.

Jet speeds:
Go fast: CAS 253-258 kn = TAS 367-375 kn = 189-193 m/s
Gimbal: CAS 238-242 kn = TAS 346-351 kn = 178-181 m/s

Let's say the average was 185 m/s. The jet would have traveled around 109 kilometers during that time.

In the Gimbal clip, one of the pilots claims:
"They're all going against the wind. The wind's 120 knots out of the west."

According to the analysis at Metabunk, which I haven't tried or checked myself, it didn't necessarily even move, but I guess we can assume they believed it was moving towards the left in the video, as it looks like that, which would be west then. Since at the time the camera angle was 35 degrees to left, they were then looking towards north and the plane was heading towards northeast or so. That statement is hardly accurate, but something like that.

Obviously the plane could have turned a lot during that 10 minutes or so, but let's see where the baseline is by assuming it didn't turn during that time. It turned some 11.5 degrees to left during the Go Fast video and maybe some 23 degrees during the Gimbal clip before that statement about the wind. So calculating from the initial direction of the Go Fast video, that would be 11.5+23 for the jet + 35 degrees camera angle, so a total of around 70 degrees from that initial direction would result in camera pointing towards north or so.

Which would mean the jet was heading east in the beginning of Go Fast, meaning it had tailwind, and since the object was heading roughly towards the same direction, that would be likely true for it too. Which of course would fit well for both birds and balloons.

As I said, a lot could have happened during that 10 minutes, but for the little we have, that would be at least some sort of baseline assuming they were not flying in circles.
 
Last edited:

MrBeliever

Paranormal Maven
Even if you fill all unknowns with wild assumptions, you'll still have to decide at some point if the object is a UFO capable of frictionless trans-medium travel or a bird/balloon drifting in the wind. What's great about that is you don't have to calculate anything... You can just decide.
 
What also seems deliberate is the reason Elizondo was selected to join the program in the first place. He repeated several times that his role was to bring a "counter-intelligence perspective" or "counter-intelligence support." It's almost like his job in the context of AATIP was to ascertain that his skill set was not needed.

Where his skill set would in fact come in handy is quite problematic: He is a trained liar of the highest caliber.
Oh good - just what we needed around here: more wild-eyed conspiracy theories founded on baseless suspicions and false premises. Whew! Between Hollywood_Tomfortas and S.R.I and Realm, we aren't nearly inundated enough with this kind of stuff already.

"Counterintelligence" is a vast domain within the intelligence community, which is mostly dedicated to heroic work like stopping terrorist attacks before they happen and protecting our intelligence assets from enemy intrusions. You (and the other conspiracy theorists here) are conflating "counterintelligence" with "disinformation and PsyOps," which is only a small subset of counterintelligence activities. We have zero reason to think that Luis Elizondo ever perpetrated disinfo operations against anyone, and it's actually perfectly clear to me that he's a straight-talking solider, not some sniveling liar (like we see on the corporate news media 24/7). The fact that he was placed in charge of the AATIP investigative effort indicates to me that he's an intelligence analyst, not a disinformation operative.

Everything about his story looks credible to me: he ran the program for several years until he left the DoD late last year, for the reasons he's given, and now he's basically working on our behalf to get data declassified and released. But he's not in control of what data is determined to be fit for public consumption - that's an independent internal process, and clearly the DoD is only willing to give us the floor clippings from these incidents...which isn't terribly surprising; we know that the DoD is excessively secretive and loathes to share anything of any real intelligence value..

If Luis Elizondo hadn't gone public we wouldn't know about the existence of the AATIP and we wouldn't have any clips at all, and we wouldn't have the riveting testimony of Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight either.

These facts make it crystal clear to me that this man is a friend, not a foe. The fact that the majority of the most vocal people in this community can't tell the difference between one and the other, only proves to me how deeply dysfunctional and self-defeating the entire ufology community has become.
 

MrBeliever

Paranormal Maven
Well, no, the suspicions are far from baseless. I called him a trained liar of the highest caliber because his training includes how to defeat polygraph tests, infiltrate other intelligence organizations and withstand torture. If he got as far as the OSD, it's fair to say he never gave anyone any reason to doubt his loyalty. Let's imagine the government asked him to lead the charge on a disinfo campaign and pretend to quit his job. Do you think he would have said no?

Remember: Disinformation happened for a fact. There are (or were) actual people in the US government who were paid to invent fake sci-fi horror alien stories to feed to nosy UFO researchers. The field of ufology has been tainted and damaged by people who were sworn to act in the interest of the American people. Tom Delonge himself was clearly targeted by an intelligence agency as recently as a couple years ago.

Nothing makes Elizondo more trustworthy than any other current or ex-government agent. Only the data can set us free!
 
Well, no, the suspicions are far from baseless. I called him a trained liar of the highest caliber because his training includes how to defeat polygraph tests, infiltrate other intelligence organizations and withstand torture. If he got as far as the OSD, it's fair to say he never gave anyone any reason to doubt his loyalty. Let's imagine the government asked him to lead the charge on a disinfo campaign and pretend to quit his job. Do you think he would have said no?

Remember: Disinformation happened for a fact. There are (or were) actual people in the US government who were paid to invent fake sci-fi horror alien stories to feed to nosy UFO researchers. The field of ufology has been tainted and damaged by people who were sworn to act in the interest of the American people. Tom Delonge himself was clearly targeted by an intelligence agency as recently as a couple years ago.
Again: it's a logical fallacy to assume that D = X just because A and B and C all equal X. We have zero evidence to support any of your speculation on this - that's all it is, idle speculation. Which everyone is doing right now.

Nothing makes Elizondo more trustworthy than any other current or ex-government agent. Only the data can set us free!
Apparently most people have a completely broken BS detector. I've seen and heard every interview with this man, other than the C2C interview because I will not give C2C any of my money, and it's as plain as the nose on my face that this guy is honest and forthright. Obviously he has to walk a fine line where classified info is concerned, but that's perfectly reasonable - he's legally bound to his security oath.

And he's working to get more data released, so it makes no sense to me to attack his character and go around promoting imaginary conspiracy theories. If we should be peeved and paranoid about anyone's involvement here, it's the DoD for holding back on the release of the actually meaningful data that we all know they have - like the entire Cmdr Fravor intercept attempt footage and radar data and those three dozen technical reports.

In what universe does the DoD have any right to withhold that evidence? We paid for all of their toys and we pay for all of their salaries, and given that they've already determined that these exotic devices don't belong to any terrestrial military inventory, then it falls into the category of "scientific data about our place in the universe," like the Hubble telescope photos. Withholding the evidence that we want to see is like the DoD deciding that we don't have a right to images of the cosmos that we live in: that's insane and totally unjustifiable.
 
Again: it's a logical fallacy to assume that D = X just because A and B and C all equal X. We have zero evidence to support any of your speculation on this - that's all it is, idle speculation. Which everyone is doing right now.


Apparently most people have a completely broken BS detector. I've seen and heard every interview with this man, other than the C2C interview because I will not give C2C any of my money, and it's as plain as the nose on my face that this guy is honest and forthright. Obviously he has to walk a fine line where classified info is concerned, but that's perfectly reasonable - he's legally bound to his security oath.

And he's working to get more data released, so it makes no sense to me to attack his character and go around promoting imaginary conspiracy theories. If we should be peeved and paranoid about anyone's involvement here, it's the DoD for holding back on the release of the actually meaningful data that we all know they have - like the entire Cmdr Fravor intercept attempt footage and radar data and those three dozen technical reports.

In what universe does the DoD have any right to withhold that evidence? We paid for all of their toys and we pay for all of their salaries, and given that they've already determined that these exotic devices don't belong to any terrestrial military inventory, then it falls into the category of "scientific data about our place in the universe," like the Hubble telescope photos. Withholding the evidence that we want to see is like the DoD deciding that we don't have a right to images of the cosmos that we live in: that's insane and totally unjustifiable.
Dearest Brother @Thomas R Morrison, I find it quite ironic, if not downright hypocritical of you to be so scolding and shaming of dear @MrBeliever, accusing him of fomenting wild-eyed conspiracy theories about Luis Elizondo and his career in US Intelligence when you yourself are just as guilty of fomenting your own rather unfounded and paranoid conspiracy theories about US Counterintelligence. Why, you even created a whole new thread here on Paracast about it. I quote below from your initial message of January 4, 2018, which is about 2-3 weeks after the momentous D-Day (for Disclosure Day) of December 16, 2017 when The NY Times published the article that catapulted Luis Elizondo to mainstream media fame and glory.

I highlight in red the phrases where you specifically make your conspiracy conjectures. A clear demonstration of the old “pot and kettle” issue, don’t you think?

The US Counterintelligence Response to News about the Pentagon UFO Program

So lately I’ve been monitoring YouTube for updates about the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), because I want to hear what experts have to say about the ATFLIR footage we’ve seen, and see related news about it.

And about a week ago I noticed a sudden flood of new YouTube content with titles including keywords like “Pentagon” and “UFO” – except the content had nothing to do with the Pentagon's program; instead, the audio and video files were old UFO-related talks, documentaries, television specials, etc.

At first I figured that opportunistic jerks were just trying to generate clicks to earn Google AdSense cash. But today I took a closer look and discovered that brand new YouTube accounts with different usernames are posting irrelevant files that share the exact same titles, and even identical descriptions – and none of them are ad-enabled so these bogus videos aren’t generating ad income for anyone.

Therefore I’m forced to conclude that we’re seeing US counterintelligence deliberately contaminating the search engines to make relevant information about this program harder to find. Because I can see no other explanation for the facts at hand. If anyone has an alternate explanation, then please share it with us.

Let me show you what I’ve found.

[I skip over your examples]

So I think it’s crystal clear from this evidence that somebody’s spending a lot of time and effort to muddy the waters, and to associate the Pentagon’s AATIP story with bogus nonsense (Planet X, Billy Meier, Moon landing conspiracy theories, etc). And although it galls me because it seems that our tax dollars are being spent to crap all over the internet and make relevant information harder to find, it also suggests that our intelligence agencies really want to bury this story – which only reinforces its significance, in my estimation.

 

DROBNJAK

Paranormal Adept
"Counterintelligence" is a vast domain within the intelligence community, which is mostly dedicated to heroic work like stopping terrorist attacks before they happen and protecting our intelligence assets from enemy intrusions. You (and the other conspiracy theorists here) are conflating "counterintelligence" with "disinformation and PsyOps," which is only a small subset of counterintelligence activities. We have zero reason to think that Luis Elizondo ever perpetrated disinfo operations against anyone, and it's actually perfectly clear to me that he's a straight-talking solider, not some sniveling liar (like we see on the corporate news media 24/7). The fact that he was placed in charge of the AATIP investigative effort indicates to me that he's an intelligence analyst, not a disinformation operative.
Purpose of Intelligence and Counterintelligence is way of corralling one's own people into a pen like a herd.

Just search for David Irving's biography of Churchill on YouTube and follow on well documented Churchill's shenanigans to bring US into WWII and use Canadians as a cannon fodder.
 
Dearest Brother @Thomas R Morrison, I find it quite ironic, if not downright hypocritical of you to be so scolding and shaming of dear @MrBeliever, accusing him of fomenting wild-eyed conspiracy theories about Luis Elizondo and his career in US Intelligence when you yourself are just as guilty of fomenting your own rather unfounded and paranoid conspiracy theories about US Counterintelligence. Why, you even created a whole new thread here on Paracast about it. I quote below from your initial message of January 4, 2018, which is about 2-3 weeks after the momentous D-Day (for Disclosure Day) of December 16, 2017 when The NY Times published the article that catapulted Luis Elizondo to mainstream media fame and glory.

I highlight in red the phrases where you specifically make your conspiracy conjectures. A clear demonstration of the old “pot and kettle” issue, don’t you think?

The US Counterintelligence Response to News about the Pentagon UFO Program
No Tom, that's obviously a facile and disingenuous comparison. I provided a perfectly rational argument, based on the substantial empirical evidence that I posted for everyone to see, and which is well-founded on the basis of all the other extremely credible data that we now have that the "Five Eyes" intelligence network participates in exactly that kind of activity. Such as this chilling little document that Edward Snowden leaked, which shows the wide range of incredibly sophisticated and sleazy disinformation and perception management strategies that the intelligence agencies deploy online:

The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations
https://edwardsnowden.com/docs/doc/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

In fact I still haven't come up with a credible alternative explanation for the flood of fake new profiles suddenly showing up on YouTube to post dozens if not hundreds of unmonetized and improperly labeled video files with the keywords "Pentagon" and "ufo" in the titles, right after the story about the Pentagon's ufo program was published by the New York Times. That's classic obfuscation/disinformation. And we know from Luis Elizondo's interviews that some people at the Pentagon were so furious about him going public with the program's existence that he received personal threats from them. Muddying the waters at YouTube is relatively tame compared to that level of hostility.

But hey if you've got a sensible alternative explanation: do tell - I'd love to hear it. In fact I'll make that a challenge: give us a better explanation Tom, because I don't think that you can.

And honestly I think it's bizarre that you vocally advocate any and all wild and totally baseless conspiracy theories against the AATIP story and everyone involved in it - without a lick of evidence to support any of it...but yet when you see actual data that indicates a real disinformation operation, suddenly you can't believe that our own government would lie to us. I think you're faking, frankly, because even a fool could see the data that I've provided and readily understand what it means.
 
Last edited:
Made a reply on Metabunk to someone complaining that Garry Nolan’s “focal plane” argument was a red herring. So I made sushi out of it.

"GO FAST" Footage from Tom DeLonge's To The Stars Academy. Bird? Balloon?

To be honest the focus thing is a red herring, the height of the plane the angle of the ATFLIR and the radar range are all incompatible with the object being just above the surface. This is simple trigonometry and requires no deep understanding of optics.
Yes, I totally agree with you, but there are definite reasons beyond the scope of this thread why Garry Nolan was defending the calculations of Bruce Maccabee which mandate the object had to be flying at a speed of 360 knots only 100 ft. above the surface of the ocean. (It involves tracing the “provenance” of TTSA which goes through AATIP directly back to Bob Bigelow and his NIDS project for which Bruce Maccabee wrote an article in 1996 about the “impossible” high-speed maneuvers of UFOs.)
National Institute for Discovery Science: Acceleration by Bruce Maccabee, Ph.D.
ACCELERATION
Bruce S. Maccabee, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT

Visual and photographic sightings of UFOs carrying out "impossible" high speed maneuvers are presented for study. For the first time we are able to quantify the amazing acceleration of these craft.
Now read the TTSA page announcing the release of this video.
2015 GO FAST FOOTAGE
The unidentified vehicle appears as a white oval shape moving at high speed from top right to lower left of the screen flying very low over the water.

Garry’s last hope to salvage the TTSA narrative about this object’s behavior was to seize on and cling to the “focal plane” issue, but to Garry’s credit, he is enough of a good scientist to be convinced by the “depth of field” consideration and realize now that the object could be at 13,000 feet and still be in acceptable focus.

I have yet to hear back from him, but I’m sure he is at least contemplating the necessity of advising TTSA that they once again must make a public admission of over-hyping their claims from strong confirmation bias that this object is a bona fide UFO under conscious control of a superior technological intelligence and not a supremely mundane object like a migratory bird or a weather balloon.

How best to sum up TTSA and their public image? I’ve grown fond of saying: Tom DeLonge is the Donald Trump of Disclosure.
 

Realm

Paranormal Adept
I provided a perfectly rational argument, based on the substantial empirical evidence that I posted for everyone to see, and which is well-founded on the basis of all the other extremely credible data that we now have that the "Five Eyes" intelligence network participates in exactly that kind of activity.
...
In fact I still haven't come up with a credible alternative explanation for the flood of fake new profiles suddenly showing up on YouTube to post dozens if not hundreds of unmonetized and improperly labeled video files with the keywords "Pentagon" and "ufo" in the titles, right after the story about the Pentagon's ufo program was published by the New York Times.
"Five Eyes" (In this case, DoD, DIA, CIA, KGB and SPECTRE, of course) headquarters, the day AATIP/TTSA hit mainstream news:

Alarms start to sound, red lights are flashing everywhere, department heads and other key personnel are running to emergency meeting. Everyone in the room understands the situation is critical. TTSA has somehow acquired an old video that has been available on the web for more than a decade, and another one, most likely a training video showing a bird and jet engine exhausts. Something has to be done! Urgently!

After an hour or so, after analyzing all sorts of options, the chairman, let's just call him Mr. Blofeld, announces that a consensus has finally been reached. The strategy is extremely cunning: create new YouTube accounts and post some content with keywords that are now being actively searched. Some worries are expressed, what if someone notices and finds out? The chairman reassures that it's almost impossible, since that sort of thing happens all the time. It's just a common practice to use "hot" keywords, even if misleading, to make content visible with popular search terms.

Mr. Smith, a relatively new recruit, is still a bit baffled. He asks the chairman, with all due respect, what exactly is the benefit of doing this? That doesn't really change anything, does it? Mr. Blofeld raises his finger, as if signaling he is just about to answer. Before he does, a security guard comes to Mr. Smith and says, "Mr. Smith, I'm sorry to interrupt, but there's an urgent matter that I need to show you elsewhere." They leave the room. A single gunshot is heard. The rest of the room agrees they should immediately proceed with the plan. And so, history is being made, for the millionth time ever, currently popular search words are being used to label videos that do not exactly match them.

That's classic obfuscation/disinformation.
That's classic conspiracy entertainment, with more than a hint of delusions. If only the above could help you understand how "credible" and "rational" your little conspiracy theories tend to be.

And honestly I think it's bizarre that you vocally advocate any and all wild and totally baseless conspiracy theories against the AATIP story and everyone involved in it - without a lick of evidence to support any of it...but yet when you see actual data that indicates a real disinformation operation, suddenly you can't believe that our own government would lie to us. I think you're faking, frankly, because even a fool could see the data that I've provided and readily understand what it means.
That was a funny way to demonstrate psychological projection. That was what you aimed to do, was it?
 

Constance

Paranormal Adept
No Tom, that's obviously a facile and disingenuous comparison. I provided a perfectly rational argument, based on the substantial empirical evidence that I posted for everyone to see, and which is well-founded on the basis of all the other extremely credible data that we now have that the "Five Eyes" intelligence network participates in exactly that kind of activity. Such as this chilling little document that Edward Snowden leaked, which shows the wide range of incredibly sophisticated and sleazy disinformation and perception management strategies that the intelligence agencies deploy online:

The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations
https://edwardsnowden.com/docs/doc/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf

In fact I still haven't come up with a credible alternative explanation for the flood of fake new profiles suddenly showing up on YouTube to post dozens if not hundreds of unmonetized and improperly labeled video files with the keywords "Pentagon" and "ufo" in the titles, right after the story about the Pentagon's ufo program was published by the New York Times. That's classic obfuscation/disinformation. And we know from Luis Elizondo's interviews that some people at the Pentagon were so furious about him going public with the program's existence that he received personal threats from them. Muddying the waters at YouTube is relatively tame compared to that level of hostility.

But hey if you've got a sensible alternative explanation: do tell - I'd love to hear it. In fact I'll make that a challenge: give us a better explanation Tom, because I don't think that you can.

And honestly I think it's bizarre that you vocally advocate any and all wild and totally baseless conspiracy theories against the AATIP story and everyone involved in it - without a lick of evidence to support any of it...but yet when you see actual data that indicates a real disinformation operation, suddenly you can't believe that our own government would lie to us. I think you're faking, frankly, because even a fool could see the data that I've provided and readily understand what it means.
Well-developed data and reasoned arguments, as usual @Thomas R Morrison . I cannot figure out the purpose of (but have been unable to sustain interest in the question of) what kinds of mind games Tomfortas perpetuates ad infinitum here, nor why he does so. I generally just skip over his posts. I do wonder how he was able to regain access to the Paracast.
 

Constance

Paranormal Adept
Someone wrote, "The demonic forces thing is from Elizondo's C2C interview. Trust me, he said that. You can also listen to Jeremy Corbell's last interview on Fade2Black, where he expands a bit on Bigelow and his work. It paints a very odd picture. It does get confusing."

You replied, "What he did say was that some people with fundamental religious beliefs (presumably some of the far-right Congressional representatives and/or DoD management) opposed the AATIP because they think that UFOs are manifestations of demonic forces, which is obviously absurd, and a problem. It's frightening to think that people with that mentality have any power in our government, and especially with our military forces."

My point wasn't directed really at you, but at anyone trying to suggest that because Elizondo mentioned "demons" and UFOs, that he somehow loses credibility. Nick Redfern is a rockstar on this forum, and with this audience, so it would be hypocritical for anyone to attack Elizondo for mentioning a group within government concerned with demonic forces, when Nick Redfern wrote a book about that very topic, and everyone on this site bowed down to him...
... My point wasn't directed really at you, but at anyone trying to suggest that because Elizondo mentioned "demons" and UFOs, that he somehow loses credibility. Nick Redfern is a rockstar on this forum, and with this audience, so it would be hypocritical for anyone to attack Elizondo for mentioning a group within government concerned with demonic forces, when Nick Redfern wrote a book about that very topic, and everyone on this site bowed down to him...

Well observed, @withoutlimits09 . It's unfortunate that some people here are evidently unable to read carefully what others write, or to attend carefully to what is actually said during recorded interviews. Thus these gross misrepresentations of what Elizondo has written or said are so far off the mark as to be worthless, and, worse, disruptive of responsible discourse.
 
Last edited:

uforadio

Paranormal Adept
[Audio+Videos]: BBC Radio 5 (Chris Mellon), ABC News, Fox News + CTV News

Dear colleagues.
Here is the latest batch.
Main Index Media Page updated:
Pentagon UFO Study

2018-03-17 - BBC Radio 5: Up All Night: Interview with Christopher Mellon
Clipped Audio:
https://app.box.com/s/0u1syt0iovu1ei23xjjh32odzqtohs0e
Source Audio:
BBC Radio 5 live - Up All Night, 17/03/2018
Thanks to Yvonne Sullivan for BBC lead!

Some left-overs:
2018-03-11 - ABC News: News Segment on the 3rd AATIP Video

2018-03-12 - Fox News: News Segment on the 3rd AATIP Video

plus Bonus Video:
2018-03-18 - CTV News: Stanton Friedman’s Retirement
Physicist Stanton Friedman on his career studying UFO’s
(Nimitz Flir and Gimbal videos shortly shown in the background)

Best wishes.
 
Last edited:

Realm

Paranormal Adept
Well-developed data and reasoned arguments, as usual @Thomas R Morrison .
Since our band of true believers in pseudo-science has once again gathered to hijack this thread with their funny little conspiracy theories, I can't resist the temptation to expose (once again) their "well-developed data", "reasoned arguments" and "crystal clear evidence". I know this is waste of time, and I won't waste it more than this, but since they are once again trying to disrupt this valuable thread (and they managed to get the previous one locked) with their personal attacks against other members who actually contribute to the rational investigation of all of this, this may be necessary.

So these were the lame examples on which Thomas based his little conspiracy theory:
Let me show you what I’ve found.

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Shane Carrasco (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about ET’s and the Pyramids and Planet X, etc.)
- This is an old audio interview with Richard Dolan that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Elmer Sheena (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about UFO’s and aliens, etc.)
- This is an old video talk by Richard Dolan that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Randall Shaffer (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about UFO’s, Planet X, aliens, etc.)
- This is an old podcast interview with Stephen Bassett that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program

Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled (posted yesterday)
Posted by Harry Willadsen (this profile is 1 day old, and yesterday uploaded 12 lame videos about UFO’s, the Pleidian aliens, Billy Meier, and the Moon landing conspiracy)
- This is a brief video about Area 51 that has nothing to do with the Pentagon’s UFO program
Apparently the "evidence" of some great disinfo campaing was those profiles being supposedly 1 day old, all posting exactly 12 videos, and one being labeled so that people find it with keywords that happened to be popular.

Unfortunately the second profile has been removed because "This account has been terminated because we received multiple third-party claims of copyright infringement regarding material the user posted". But let's look at those other three.

Why did all of them post 12 videos? Answer is, they didn't. That's just the amount that is shown on the channel front page by default, you can see the rest by clicking "Uploads". Here are the links that show all of their videos, from oldest to newest, all of them actually having 100+ videos:

Shane Carrasco
Randall Shaffer
Harry Willadsen

As you can see, there's also some other stuff besides UFOs, like something about massages. If you click on the first/oldest video, you can see that none of these profiles were 1 day old, in reality they date back to 2016:

Shane Carrasco
Published on Jul 8, 2016

Randall Shaffer
Published on Jul 4, 2016

Harry Willadsen
Published on Jul 4, 2016

Back then, all of them had some content featuring Japanese/Asian girls, and then when UFOs became a hot topic, they published a lot of stuff about them at the same time. That "Secret Pentagon UFO program unveiled", which (or any mention of Pentagon) was only in one video on each, happened to be the label CBS News had used for their own news video a few days earlier, and other media used very similar titles, so that's a good label if you try to get some of that popular search traffic to your channel. Those first two accounts actually copied the same piece of text from the description of that CBS News clip, ending in the same spot in the middle of a sentence.

Because of those similarities, at least two and possibly the third account as well are probably controlled by a single person, who is trying to find some content to attract viewers, which could be monetized later if some of those attempts would succeed. That's just normal on YouTube, I have seen accounts like these trying the same thing on all sorts of current topics and popular keywords. It also doesn't seem to have worked in this case, since in total they have 24 subscribers and those Pentagon videos have a total of 84 views, some of it due to us looking at them because of this funny little conspiracy theory, that was once again based on incorrect information and lack of rational thinking.
 
Last edited:

Top