1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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/introducing-the-paracast/

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

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!
    Dismiss Notice

Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

Discussion in 'The UFO Forum' started by uforadio, Mar 9, 2018.



  1. MrBeliever

    MrBeliever Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Earth
    We already established that neither CAS nor TAS would be in a useful frame of reference due to winds potentially reaching 200 knots at 25000 ft, not to mention the unknown effect of temperature and moisture on the sensors, which are calibrated for sea level and "normal" conditions.

    I would go as far as to say the video was selected specifically because it did not allow anyone to determine the capabilities of either aircraft. Maybe we'll never get a clear saucer picture, because the footage is so incredibly valuable from a military perspective. They may not be US machines, but we don't want our adversaries to benefit from the releases either.
     
  2. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    We have already established TAS is the sensible reference frame since it gives the best available baseline estimate we have from the actual data, and since the calculations are based on relative differences between altitudes of 4 and 7 kilometers, ground speeds or winds there do not really matter. But you just don't listen.

    Keep believing your conspiracy theories, and I will keep looking at the data we actually have, and what math actually shows.
     
  3. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    I took another look at Metabunk, and Mick there has raised some of the same issues I mentioned, and I now remember I also noted those in my initial reactions on his calculations on March 12 here already:
    Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring

    But the interesting bit is this, that I hadn't noticed:
    So that's why Maccabee used that nonsensical combination of range and angle! He didn't look at the video while it was playing, but a composite still image made by the TTSA.

    What a great idea from the TTSA to try to make the case that those videos are unmodified originals, and then create a fake composite frame showing a combination of values that do not exist in the video and once again result in such confusion!

    If they wanted to show all the indicator values on their explanations, they could have simply chosen one of the many real frames that had all those.
     
  4. MrBeliever

    MrBeliever Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Earth
    But "most sensible" doesn't make your results any less bogus than Maccabee's. They're not even scientifically sensible. Why not pick initial wind values and a turning radius that makes the object faster than any bird? Because that result can clearly be reached with assumptions that are equally arbitrary to the ones you decided on.
     
  5. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    Same old broken record... You really don't understand what is being calculated, do you?

    I already showed Maccabee doesn't even calculate the right thing. It's your problem if you don't understand that from the explanation I just gave.

    And yes, it is the scientifically right thing to do to calculate what the available data allows to establish the baseline which also allows evaluations of possible effects of winds. There are no "arbitrary assumptions" in those calculations.

    And as I have said numerous times, it doesn't matter what the absolute wind speeds are, only the relative difference between 4km and 7km. Even if the wind was 1000mph to the same direction on both of those altitudes, the result would be exactly the same, it would have affected both objects in the same way, it would reflect their performance characteristics the same way.

    When it comes to the turning radius, that is simply calculated with a standard equation that is based on actual physics, and it is in good agreement with NATOPS manual for the F-18. It's not assumed or picked, it's calculated, from real data. I have already explained that to you too, but you just don't listen.

    I am not the one making assumptions, you are, you are trying to make all sorts of assumptions that would allow you to deny the fact that based on all the available data, the object wasn't interesting at all. There's absolutely no data that in any way indicates it did anything interesting, or that it would be anything out of ordinary. These calculations have proven the assumptions TTSA has made about the object speed and altitude are simply wrong, plain and simple.

    Your only hope to make that target seem out of ordinary in any way is to establish the exact time and place of that event and wind speeds at altitudes of 4 and 7 kilometers, and show that they were significantly different and to directions that would make the speed of that object fall outside the boundaries of birds and balloons. Good luck with that. Good luck finding such data for any similar case. Unless you can do that, what I have calculated is the best available information we have, and that is based on the best available data we have, that sets the baseline and contains the minimum amount of assumptions.

    And this will be the last time I will explain this same thing to you.
     
    CuCullen likes this.
  6. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    4,073
    Wondering how you can be sure of that without actually knowing/understanding the performance characteristics, capabilities, of the unknown object?
     
  7. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    I'm calculating relative speeds between two objects, which are "contained" in the air, and if that air that contains them is moving in the same way for both of them, it doesn't make that much difference in that relative calculation. It's about the same as calculating the (relative) walking speeds of two people that walk on the street vs. two that walk the same way inside a moving train. The latter are still people with their regular performance, even though their "ground speeds" can be 100 mph+.

    If we nitpick on the details, both planes and birds can for example compensate the effects of winds coming from the side in different ways, affecting their forward speeds in a somewhat different manner and and so on, but since we don't know the details of those winds in any case, that is a smaller uncertainty than the difference in relative wind speeds anyway.

    The important part to understand is that the calculations are not based on any assumptions in any significant way, just raw data, and they give pretty accurate results where pretty much the only significant unknown variable left is the relative difference of wind speeds at 4 and 7 kilometers. Since that is not known, what we have is the baseline which basically assumes there's no difference, no matter the absolute wind speeds relative to the ground. Since we don't have the wind data, there's no reason trying to assume the difference would happen to be the kind that would just happen to make the speed of the object large, instead of just making it smaller.
     
    DROBNJAK likes this.
  8. MrBeliever

    MrBeliever Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Earth
    Huhuh. If you could apply that logic to the rest of your calculations, I might just take your analysis seriously.
     
  9. DROBNJAK

    DROBNJAK Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    248
    Location:
    London, UK
    @Realm's calculations are rock solid, within very small +/- 5% error margin. They are basically derived from very simple, and thus unfailable, geometry and Pitagora's theorem. There is no reason to doubt his conclusions. As well, there is no need to know performances of the two objects, since all the distances are measured by laser rangefinder on the plane.
     
  10. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    If that sentence made any sense, I could take you seriously.

    You still don't seem to understand those calculation don't require any special logic, assumptions or choices in values. It's simply instrument values seen in the video as inputs, equations that turn those into coordinates relative to the starting point, and the result is a graph of jet and target trajectories.
     
    CuCullen likes this.
  11. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    Yeah, and it really only takes one simple calculation to prove the claims and assumptions TTSA made about that third video are wrong:

    Altitude of the target = 25000 feet - sin(26 degrees) * 4.4 nautical miles

    All those values are straight from the video from the moment the target is locked (the results are very close to same regardless of which point of the video you choose to use to calculate that). Converted to meters:

    Altitude of the target = 7620m - sin(26 degrees) * 8149m = 4048m

    That's really all it takes to show that the fundamental assumptions TTSA and apparently those pilots made are simply wrong, and those incorrect assumptions of low altitude and high speed supposedly made this video somehow mysterious. It just lost all that with a simple equation. Those more complicated calculations just show how badly they were wrong, in increasing accuracy, but that altitude alone is disastrous enough for TTSA and this case. If only any of them would have done that simple calculation before publishing this thing, they could have avoided a major embarrassment. But apparently nobody did, which reveals nobody analyzed this. Since Elizondo was the one who arranged this to be published, it's pretty obvious he or AATIP (what was left of it at the time) didn't really analyze it either.

    TTSA really needs to take the responsibility for that blunder now. They have to admit they are making claims that are mathematically impossible from the information they themselves are handing out. It's one thing to make a mistake, but a whole lot worse to not admit it. Let's see how long it takes for them to do that.

    Alternatively, they could try to divert the conversation to something else, like this:
    ATACAMA SKELETON INVESTIGATION

    What does that have to do with anything? Well, Nolan tries to makes some loose links to TTSA, but considering the above, and how he has been active spreading those incorrect claims, he is hardly the right person to state these words:
    Good science? How about trying some elementary math first. Phenomena mainstream science has ignored? What was that supposed to be? Genetics? What? And speaking of lessons, I was one of those who tried to give him one, let's see if he has learned anything from that, and if he is able to teach that to the rest of the TTSA team, and if they are men enough to do the right thing.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  12. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    Also in the news, interview of Harry Reid, where he tells some interesting details:
    Harry Reid on What the Government Knows About UFOs

    So who is that scientist? I guess that doesn't quite match to Puthoff or Davis?

    So Reid seems to say they had funding only for two years, not five. And it seems that building, famous for those supposed "mystery materials", was mostly for storing documents they gathered (probably mostly from existing archives).

    What kind of bidding was that exactly if Bigelow won that because of spending money? How did they arrange that bidding if it was all so secret? Who competed with Bigelow?

    Available where? The press is currently trying to get FOIA responses to get even a single piece of paper by the AATIP.

    So is he talking about just any papers that have something to do with UFOs, or those that have something to do with the AATIP? Didn't he just arrange $22 million of public money to be spent investigating those reports? Did they get real results and pick out the good stuff? Shouldn't the press and public get the results from that $22 million of their money, instead of him complaining why the press haven't investigated data they are not even given?
     
  13. Hollywood Tomfortas

    Hollywood Tomfortas Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    287
    Occupation:
    Cat Butler
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    Consider the time frame. This has to be 2007 when Harry Reid became the House Majority leader after the 2006 elections put the Democrats in the majority during Bush the Younger’s term.

    So it can’t be Puthoff or Davis. Recall that Eric Davis worked for NIDS from 1996 until NIDS demise in 2002. And Puthoff and Bigelow go back at least to the demise of Project Stargate in 1995 when Puthoff needed new funding and connected with Bigelow to form NIDS.

    Would be very instructive to go back and re-read Recluse’s blogpost about Bob Bigelow to get more of the context:
    VISUP: Fringe: The Strange Dealings of Bob Bigelow
     
  14. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    This has significant similarities:
    Skinning the Skinwalker: Secrets of Bob Bigelow’s spooky Utah ranch | STARpod US

    Since AATIP was a DIA program, it would make sense someone from DIA, who was connected to Bigelow, would have got the ball rolling. That someone may have been part of the AATIP team, even leading it before Elizondo.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
  15. MrBeliever

    MrBeliever Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Earth
  16. S.R.L.

    S.R.L. Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    1,144
    Occupation:
    Facilatator of Peace & Tranquility
    Location:
    Somewhere Betwixt Sea Level & 10K Ft.
  17. Constance

    Constance Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    6,873
    Likes Received:
    4,073
  18. Thomas R Morrison

    Thomas R Morrison Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2014
    Messages:
    652
    Likes Received:
    1,141
    Location:
    United States
    Here’s something that I think is important with this story, but nobody’s mentioned it yet: if TTSA was the shameless kind of money-grab organization that many people have accused them of being, they would’ve gone commercial with all this stuff, like the “Alien Autopsy” hoaxers did, or the appalling “Roswell Slides” jokers did. But they didn’t – they just gave us everything for free.

    In fact I just checked out all four of the videos they have on their YouTube channel – and they’re not even monetized: we don’t even have to watch a commercial for 5 seconds in order to see these video clip releases. They have over 8 million views that they easily could’ve monetized.

    Every dollar they’ve brought in has been on a totally voluntary basis. I think it’s insane that anyone has a problem with any of this.
     
  19. Realm

    Realm Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    415
    Likes Received:
    408
    Location:
    -
    You really are missing the whole scheme. Monetizing content with fees or ads would be just normal business, but this is way worse.

    First of all, they do have ads, they just advertise themselves. Their clips begin with texts advertising how that content is exclusive to them, how they supposedly have the CoC documentation, which we still haven't seen, they have put their big logo on top of the actual videos, and at the end is a big ad for themselves and link to their page, which is selling investments. They are not sharing the actual original clips, which wouldn't have been recompressed and hence losing detail with additional artifacts, most likely because those wouldn't have their ads in them. They are prioritizing their marketing over the accuracy and quality of the evidence.

    Secondly, they don't exactly have the kind of content they could sell. The actual original videos are shorter than many ads. Plus the one that is actually from a significant event has been publicly and freely available for more than a decade, and really, in a more original form, not having TTSA ads or anything. If they had actually made people to pay for the "Go Fast" video for example, it would be time for refunds, since they have marketed it with obviously false information.

    If they actually cared for the information they are handing out, they would have corrected such gross errors by now. The main purpose seems to be just content marketing, and why else would they also publish Nolan's Atacama skeleton stuff, which has little to do with the TTSA?

    Like all roads lead to Rome, all they have done seems to lead to them selling so called investments. That's the first thing on their front page. Their COI pages have a big "Invest now" button and link to their offering circular at the bottom. Their "join us" and "get involved" links lead to investments, both on their main and COI pages. Their main page is publishing new content under the heading "Investment updates". When people have tried to ask them questions through their contact form, instead of actual responses, they responded with advertising investments. Sure, it's voluntary to actually invest, but so are investments in pyramid schemes.

    The real problems begin when we look at how those investments are actually priced ($5 for book value of $0.003) and used. We find DeLonge giving himself big guaranteed royalties for business that is actually losing money. We find DeLonge giving himself loans between his own businesses, with interests to pay, and at least most of that money has little to do with TTSA, at least half of it was already loaned between his entertainment businesses before TTSA even existed. He loaned money to himself, and expects investors to pay it back, with interest. Those loans are fittingly due at the end of this years, right after the current investment period ends. Then there's the issue of collecting the money in this stupid way, causing expenses as high as 25% of all that is collected, by their own estimates.

    Let's try to calculate how much they are in the hole by the end of this year from those alone:

    Loans + interests (2016-2018): ~$680,000
    Minimum royalties (2017,2018): 2x $100,000
    Expected offering expenses: $250,000+

    That's -$1,130,000 already. No wonder their minimum target was a million.

    How about their core and only business really, entertainment, does that help? Let's look at their past performance (from the Offering Circular):
    Maybe they have done better in 2017? Let's look at their semiannual report for the first half of that year:
    https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1710274/000114420417065376/tv482047_1sa.htm

    Oh dear, doesn't look too good, but luckily they have some gullible investors ready to rescue them. The majority of those insane deficits seems to be because of those shares and options they have given to themselves, as if those were free, which they pretty much have been for them, not to the investors, who are really just mocked with acts like that. I'm not familiar with those bookkeeping practices and if those are typically recorded like that.

    Anyhow, if they have continued to make similar kinds of losses for 2017 and 2018, they would be on target to need closer to two million just to get to the zero level. But hey, they already have $2.5 million of investment money, so not a problem, right? I wouldn't count on it, as I'm suspecting much of it isn't actually real, but that's another story. Also, at the moment for example, comparing their counters to what they were 10 days ago, they have actually lost both money and investors.

    On several occasions, I have raised the question why didn't they make a fresh start as a new non-profit without all these shady connections to existing businesses (which would have been free to donate some money to the non-profit if they wanted, and actually had some). But the answer looks to be pretty apparent now: A new business would had to start from zero, now they can start from -$26,248,900, and counting, due to being stuck with old businesses causing losses.

    Anyone who still believes they have resources to do some unrealistic research, or that their nonsense would be attracting actual serious academics and such, hasn't really followed what is actually going on with that sham of a company. For all that I can see, it's not about entertainment funding UFO research, as some true believers seem to think, it's about gullible UFO enthusiasts funding failing entertainment, including paying for significant losses DeLonge has incurred in the past.
     
  20. MrBeliever

    MrBeliever Paranormal Adept

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    60
    Location:
    Earth
    Don't forget that operating at a loss is highly desirable; this will actually allow the business to dodge significant taxes in its first year. If the business fails, of course, it does mean Delonge might get to erase the debt, but it hardly betrays "money-grabbing" intentions.

    If you believe his passion is genuine, there's no reason to think that he's betting against his own venture.
     
Loading...

Share This Page