• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Pentagon UFO Study - Media Monitoring


That is only partially true.

UFOs are transient phenomena. Scientifically speaking, transient phenomena can only be studied through statistics, not unlike quantum mechanics. Nobody can measure exact position and speed of a single electron, but everybody can easily measure both properties of million electrons and than extract averages.

A statistical study of large sample of uncorrelated UFO witness testimonies, would lead to reliable and tangible, albeit in UFO's case qualitative, information about any phenomena. Even qualitative UFO information can be useful because we can recognize many of UFO properties which are within our scientific knowledge.

When he wrote the paper UFO REPORTS INVOLVING VEHICLE INTERFERENCE Dr. Mark Rodeghier extracted 448 cases out of a database with 40,000 records and provided the strongest rational and un-debunkable proof that UFOs are here.

Dr. Mark Rodeghier and Ray Stamford both stand shoulder to shoulder as a men who contributed the most to a scientific study of UFOs.

But serious work like that either takes years or costs millions. Ray Stamford said that he spent $2M on his mobile lab.

We just need more physical measurements, we are drowning in witness testimonials.
Yeah I get what you're saying, but there are thousands of ufo sighting reports in the public sector every year, so a few more people telling their stories doesn't change the statistical landscape in any significant way. And the performance characteristics they describe have been known for over 70 years. So these guys can talk until they're blue in the face, but unless they start blabbing about sources and methods and stuff like that (which they're being very careful not to describe), then it's hard to see how anything they say about these incidents could be of any significant intelligence value, or compromise national security in any way.
 
I was referring to the material evidence (the data, any official documents/analyses on the matter, the high-rez gun camera footage, any recovered fragments, etc), which would certainly be classified. The testimony of ufo witnesses would be essentially worthless, so it wouldn't really matter. But I'm always happy to learn more about all that stuff from people like Kevin Randle and others with government security experience.
"It looks to me like: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information says, "willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available", which would appear to include blabbing to the media or anyone else."
Let's say that's true for the sake of argument. So what? TTSA is basically a charity organization. People donating to it aren't expecting their money back, and the "shares" they get aren't even traded. So if he donated to it and then promoted it, that would be like donating to the Red Cross and then promoting it with a series of news segments and interviews. I don't see how anyone could spin that into something unethical or insidious, but then again, I never thought I'd see people complaining about a government insider coming forward to let us know about a Pentagon ufo investigation program and its totally affirmative conclusions, either...strange world.
Not sure if this has been posted yet


Doesn't exactly inspire investor confidence does it?
 
Last edited:
My ¢2 worth: I remember listening some science program or documentary, where astronomer said to journalist that there is a legal requirement for them to not to talk to press, if they spot large asteroid on collision path with Earth. They first need to report to relevant government's department and wait for their further instructions.
 
My ¢2 worth: I remember listening some science program or documentary, where astronomer said to journalist that there is a legal requirement for them to not to talk to press, if they spot large asteroid on collision path with Earth. They first need to report to relevant government's department and wait for their further instructions.
Interesting. I recall something like that too but haven't seen any confirmation. I'm not sure how it could be kept secret though. There are so many observatories around the world, not to mention amateur astronomers, that any large asteroid wouldn't go unnoticed for long by people with no obligation not to publicly disclose. If there were any such condition, it would probably only apply to certain large government funded observatories.
 
Yeah I get what you're saying, but there are thousands of ufo sighting reports in the public sector every year, so a few more people telling their stories doesn't change the statistical landscape in any significant way. And the performance characteristics they describe have been known for over 70 years. So these guys can talk until they're blue in the face, but unless they start blabbing about sources and methods and stuff like that (which they're being very careful not to describe), then it's hard to see how anything they say about these incidents could be of any significant intelligence value, or compromise national security in any way.

Statistical landscape changes in a very drastic way. It's the same method used by all intelligence agencies around the world, who can afford it (its very labor intensive). It's halfway between science and hypnotizing goats, but it gives much better results (just joking). Astrophysicist Dr. Mark Rodeghier extracted inverse square law from witness testimonials (more bellow).

During Cold War there was an institute somewhere in UK having nothing but a bunch of Russian language experts. British embassy in Moscow was sending, through diplomatic post, on regular basis bags stacked up to the rim full of Soviet newspapers and magazines, from local to national level. Purely heavily censored, low quality qualitative information.

Than these British Russian language experts would pour through mountains of news articles and simply cross correlate information. Seemingly out of nothing, suddenly military grade information would appear, which was than used to choose targets for satellite overflight and confirmation. I am heavily improvising here, but it would work something like this, one article would say that a new road was completed three months ago in some remote part of USSR and another article, from somewhere else, would say that there was shortage of electricity in that same area. From that and other information they would conclude that a new nuclear test will be happening soon on the end of that new built road and that power shortage was caused by preparation for the nuclear test. Than NATO would send satellite.

That method, where data analysts extract strategic info from innocuous news clippings is well known in both US and British intelligence. Actually, that's was very similar to how US discovered Japanese admiral Jamoto's flight plan and killed him in an air ambush.

And in modern times its not unlike the way NSA extracts info about impeding terrorist attacks, without recording actual conversations, by only analyzing who talked with whom and when.

If you want, in every pile of rubbish there is a high grade meta-information.


Back to UFOs' meta-information.

Astrophysicist Dr. Mark Rodeghier extracted 448 out of 40,000 cases where distances between cars and UFOs right before engine stopped was available. Than he printed those distances on a chart and got inverse power law curve. Inverse power curve is the curve that describes distribution of electric field. Together other physical observations from 100s of other cases we now know that there is a very strong electric field spreading out some 100-200m (300-600yards) from UFOs. There is a link in my signature where you can read more.

Astrophysicist Dr. Mark Rodeghier work is the holy grail of all physical proofs that UFOs are here. That little inverse square law curve points out that there is more science data waiting to be extracted. No rational skeptic can debunk Dr. Mark Rodeghier's work. Irrational skeptics are of course invincible.

This is EM spectrum that Ray Stanford's team (with millionaire onboard) recorded from two UFOs, one large and one small, few miles away from their van. It happened on the road skirting a fence of the site where US gov. tested nukes. Big red spike occurred when both large and small UFO made a sudden zig-zag turn. You are looking at a piece of scientific gold here, with frequencies, amplitudes etc.:
upload_2018-6-19_18-26-36.png
This is all that I managed to find on the net from Ray Stanford. I am sure he has a tons more. So, if you can get hold of him and charm, bribe or beg him to release more, please do. I tried, but didn't get very far.



We should really be focusing on trying to rise funds for a mobile laboratory, instead on researching cases or even endlessly debating them. Ray Stanford had stricken it lucky with some Texas millionaire, who had oil businesses in both Texas and Saudi Arabia. That guy wanted to stay anonymous, but he pulled $2M in one piece and even worked as a member of mobile lab stuff. Unfortunately for general public and science, that millionaire most likely refused to give Ray Stanford a permission to publicly release the data, because millionaire being a businessman, wanted to sell info to government and get his money worth back. I don't blame him. Ray Stanford talks about it in interviews he gave on The Paracast. So it's all here.

Moral of the story, stop taking, start searching for millionaires. They all know each other and there are lots of them looking for seat of pants adventure. Mobile lab is the must. Static lab has chance 1 in 1,000,000. Mobile lab has chance of 1 in 50 of coming close to UFO.
 
Last edited:
... This is all that I managed to find on the net from Stamford ...
Interesting, but are you sure you don't mean Ray Stanford ? Somewhere not too far back someone made the point that we already have decades worth of sighting reports to sift through. So although a mobile lab is a kinda cool idea, there seems to be a huge imbalance between the analysis and public reporting of good quality existing reports and the influx of new reports. Not that we shouldn't have field people, but sifting through existing reports and writing-up good articles can be done for free with no need for millionaire intervention, and it can be at least as helpful at contributing to public awareness and bringing respectability to the field. Why is it so difficult then to get volunteers? Only a few decent content writers cooperating with each other could produce a publication far better than the MUFON Journal or anything else out there. I guess it's easier to shell out a few bucks for a membership and sit back and let other people do the work.
 
Last edited:
Interesting? ... Its SHOW STOPPING! That is EM signal from two real UFOs.

yeah, Ray Stanford. With me spelling mistakes are guaranteed. Will correct it immediately.

Edit*: You have more detail about Ray Sanford's mobile lab in the paper EVIDENCE OF VERY STRONG LOW FREQUENCY MAGNETIC FIELDS by A. Meessen available link in my signature. Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
So although a mobile lab is a kinda cool idea, there seems to be a huge imbalance between the analysis and public reporting of good quality existing reports and the influx of new reports. Not that we shouldn't have field people, but sifting through existing reports and writing-up good articles can be done for free with no need for millionaire intervention, and it can be at least as helpful at contributing to public awareness and bringing respectability to the field. Why is it so difficult then to get volunteers? Only a few decent content writers cooperating with each other could produce a publication far better than the MUFON Journal or anything else out there. I guess it's easier to shell out a few bucks for a membership and sit back and let other people do the work.

Not even close.

@Thomas R Morrison and myself already discussed it at length. And Thomas won. There is only as far as one can take meta-information.

To persuade scientists and thus the general public, we need measurements. No measurements, no science. If you want measurements are uber reality-check. In science qualitative information, like witness testimonials, is considered low quality info, and most of scientist wouldn't even look at it. Military and intelligence would not always require info to be of scientific quality, they are more practical people and they would take on written documents and word from people of authority.

Multi spectral measurements: gravity disturbances, electro-magnetisam, visible light video, IR & thermal video. laser rangefinding etc. say in about 12 independent sightings would would leave no room for suspended disbelief. It's simply a way of passing valuable info into a public domain so that best brains can do work on it.

There is a plenty of proof physical and verbal that UFOs are here. But the biggest problem is data fragmentation. One witness had seen this, another had seen that, physical trace evidence proved electrical phenomena in one case, but only radioactivity in other case etc. etc. Than most researchers get discouraged, or drift towards conspiracy theories.

Multi-spectral data would kill that problem right away, because it would show all the possible physical angles cross-confirming each other.

As Dr. Alan Hynek said in his book, such a set of measurements would kickstart completely new scientific revolution. It would be no understatement to say that it would start a scientific race into explaining how this technology works. It would give scientists a foundation from which they can choose direction with higher degree of confidence and without a fear of ridicule.

Theoretical foundation for faster than light travel already exists within general relativity in a mathematically consistent form as worp drives. But instead of worp drives languishing on sidelines, they would become mainstream research area. Purpose of mobile lab would be to provide initial proof, so that than much bigger gov. and corpo. money can jump in.

Government wouldn't (publicly) touch this this area with barge pole, so only option left is a private sector donor. Only problem with private donors, is that they would want to get their investment back, while scientists can only work by sharing info freely. Jupiter probe can cost $400M, but all the data is free to download from NASA's website. Bigallow is good example. His big deal with MUFON fell apart because he wanted to keep all the data for himself (even the data collected before his deal ;-) and sell it to the highest bidder.
 
Last edited:
I don't really share the view that quantity and quality of data matter. The bigger issue is all the data and witness testimony can be faked. The public doesn't care if the science is sound; they don't even need to see it. They need someone they already know and respect to look at it and tell them it's okay to believe.

That person is not Tom Delonge, not some secret agent no one has ever heard of, not some cash-strapped vet with a story, not people that spent their careers working for a government known to be actively engaged in the deception of its own people.

It's a shame Hawking died.
 
I don't really share the view that quantity and quality of data matter

You are misunderstanding the meaning of qualitative and quantitative.

In science jargon "qualitative" doesn't mean "quality of data", it means speculative theoretical data. At some point even Einstein's Special Relativity was considered just speculative musings of a rookie. There was 5 years of silence, before Max Plank noticed his paper and offered him university position.

Similarly, "quantitative" data doesn't mean quantity of data, but experimentally confirmed scientific data.

To rephrase it, you give scientists multi-spectral experimental data, for say 12 UFO observations (from mobile lab measurements), you'll soon find plenty of scientists of authority who will stand behind Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. You will completely swing pendulum to the other side.

On the end of a day, by a belief of most scientists, question of finding a traces of life in universe is very quickly approaching certainty. Once, hopefully soon, possibility that they are here would be one notch more credible.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know what that is – do you have a link?


Both radar operators say that they were never asked to sign an NDA and nobody ever told them to keep quiet about this case.

I’m so sick of the factless conspiracy theories surrounding all of this. You’re saying that after 70 years of policy maintaining ufo denial and public mockery, suddenly the CIA decided to perpetrate a gigantic hoax to convince people that they actually do exist, apparently for no discernible reason whatsoever. It defies all sense and logic.


I don’t understand why nobody seems to grasp military security and classification. So let’s look at a simple example.

Imagine that the US military were to take high-resolution video footage of covert tests of the latest BrahMos missile as it reached Mach 5 and executed a series of in-flight maneuvers to test its flight capabilities. That footage would be extremely highly classified, in part because it shows the cutting-edge technological capabilities of a foreign nation, and partly because it reveals the technological capabilities of our own intelligence gathering apparatus.

These devices make the BrahMos supersonic missile look about as advanced as a Tonka toy. The intelligence value of the footage Trevor saw is incalculable – it could offer critical clues to the operation of a technology light-years ahead of our best defense technology.

It would be insane to share that footage with the public, because by sharing it with us, they’d also be sharing it with all of our nation’s geopolitical adversaries. And they might glean key clues about the operation of that technology by analyzing the footage.

Everything of significant defense intelligence value is automatically classified. So it’s a minor miracle that we’ve seen even those worthless little blurry snippets of footage that have been released so far, if they do in fact depict some kind of alien or otherwise unidentified technology. But that’s why we’ve been allowed to see those clips: they’re basically worthless, as far as intelligence value goes. So I’ll be absolutely stunned if we ever see any really interesting video from the DoD or any other government body.

I'm sorry...my bad --- It's JANAP146 not JNAP114

ARMY-NAVY-AIR FORCE PUBLICATION 146(E) (JANAP 146[E])

Well yes...the CIA decided to perpetrate and performed a gigantic UFO PSYOP hoax many years ago, when they hired George Adamski to write a book, about his excursion to Venus on a flying saucer with a Venusian humanoid. The CIA even supplied a picture of a Venusian posing in front of his parked, glowing saucer, so Adamski could publish the photo in his book; that I even bought, but did not believe in Adamski's far-out story.
It was all part an partial to the PSYOP CIA investigation, about the publics reaction to an alien encounter with an extraterrestrial being with a flying saucer.
 
Last edited:
"It looks to me like: 18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information says, "willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available", which would appear to include blabbing to the media or anyone else."
You cropped off the important part (and then replaced it with my own words instead). That’s called “cherry-picking.” That would be like me telling a reporter “I hate dogs that kill babies,” and then you broadcasting just the “I hate dogs” part to convince people that I have a problem with their pets. Not an honest debate tactic.

The full context illustrates that classification pertains to information and materials that have been specifically designated as classified. For example if somebody said “the range of a SPY-1 radar system is x number of miles,” they’d be in hot water because the specs about our most advanced radar systems is classified information. Some radar operator or pilot saying “I saw an unidentified object that outperformed our top jet interceptors” would not be classified for two reasons; 1.) it has no intelligence value, and 2.) that knowledge is already in the public sector and has been for decades. Information is no longer classified once it exists in the public domain – you can’t put the cat back into the bag. Anyway, here’s the full excerpt so people can see what kinds of material merits classification by the government:

(a)Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1)
concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2)
concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3)
concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4)
obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b)
As used in subsection (a) of this section—
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;

Not sure if this has been posted yet


Doesn't exactly inspire investor confidence does it?
I’m not thrilled that TTSA apparently acquired $400K in debt from TTS when it was absorbed by TTSA. But on the other hand, that’s not uncommon, and DeLonge contributed 6 or 7 figures in start-up capital to get TTSA up and running, which will eventually be repaid according to their prospectus.

But Tim Doyle’s analysis about the value of the shares is meaningless – this isn’t publicly traded stock, as I said before – you can’t buy and trade TTSA on any stock market. The structure is a kind of charity, not an investment vehicle. Nobody’s donating to TTSA with the expectation of getting their money back, or sharing in any future earnings. So that whole part of his analysis is predicated on the wrong business model.

And ironically, at the end he closes with “so if you’re expecting some type of ufo disclosure, you may be disappointed.” One month later we learned about the existence of the AATIP through the New York Times, and learned about the Nimitz case with two of our top fighter pilots telling their story, and we got the first military footage ever released which appears to be from genuine ufo incidents. These events led to the first national broadcast segments that I’ve ever seen in my life, which took this subject seriously. So from where I’m sitting, the people who donated to TTSA have already gotten their money’s worth, and I’m grateful for their contributions. Everyone interested in this field should be as well, imo.

My ¢2 worth: I remember listening some science program or documentary, where astronomer said to journalist that there is a legal requirement for them to not to talk to press, if they spot large asteroid on collision path with Earth. They first need to report to relevant government's department and wait for their further instructions.
I wasn’t aware of that, but I can understand why they’d do it: a false positive could incite mass public panic because it’s a clear existential threat to everyone on the planet. It's illegal to shout “fire!” or “terrorist!” on an airplane for the same reason.

But as SETI has said many times, there’s no law prohibiting them from announcing the discovery of an alien signal. Because learning that we’re not alone in the universe is an entirely different matter. Likewise some radar operator saying “I saw a ufo” isn’t dangerous, or a threat to public safety, and it doesn’t disclose any meaningful technical info about how they operate. But radar tracking data and clear gun camera footage might, so that’s a different matter: nobody wants to give the Russians any key clues that could help them deliver a nuclear warhead over an American city at 24,000+mph.

Statistical landscape changes in a very drastic way.
You misunderstood me – I wasn’t saying that statistical analysis is worthless, I was saying that one more case is just a drop in the bucket, and all of the existing water in that bucket is already public knowledge anyway.

Not even close.

@Thomas R Morrison and myself already discussed it at length. And Thomas won. There is only as far as one can take meta-information.

To persuade scientists and thus the general public, we need measurements. No measurements, no science. If you want measurements are uber reality-check. In science qualitative information, like witness testimonials, is considered low quality info, and most of scientist wouldn't even look at it.
That’s right – the dearth of credible scientific data is the primary reason that scientists won’t look at this subject. And without scientists looking at this and analyzing real empirical data collected from these events, the public generally doesn’t see it as a serious subject of inquiry either.

So in my view the kind of work that Chris is doing, could be the kind of game-changer that I’ve been looking for my entire life.

I don't really share the view that quantity and quality of data matter. The bigger issue is all the data and witness testimony can be faked. The public doesn't care if the science is sound; they don't even need to see it. They need someone they already know and respect to look at it and tell them it's okay to believe.
I disagree. Sen. Harry Reid validated the subject when he talked about the AATIP on the mainstream news, and it didn’t have much impact. People need to see credible scientific data and analyses by trained professional scientists. When that happens, public perception of all this will change dramatically. Science leads our culture when it comes to defining the borders between what’s real and what isn’t.

To rephrase it, you give scientists multi-spectral experimental data, for say 12 UFO observations (from mobile lab measurements), you'll soon find plenty of scientists of authority who will stand behind Extraterrestrial Hypothesis. You will completely swing pendulum to the other side.
Yeah that’s how I see it too. A lot of scientists are fascinated by this subject, but they can’t do anything with it because they don’t have the kind of evidence they need to examine and analyze and draw conclusions from.

Once that data is available, some brave souls in the scientific community will get involved, and that will tip the scales, as long as the data holds up to scrutiny.
 
Not even close ... @Thomas R Morrison and myself already discussed it at length. And Thomas won. There is only as far as one can take meta-information ...
It's just a discussion, not a debate. Nobody needs to "win". It's two different kinds of data sets, each of which have significance in different contexts. Both have value to the field. But the challenges with each are very different. Hardware based investigative field projects are a great idea, but beyond the financial means of the vast majority of researchers. Objective analysts who will take time to sift through reports and create objective articles are also rare, and virtually nobody but perhaps CUFOS, and maybe MUFON is attempting to distill down the backlog. Both have meager budgets.

What does this say? To me it says everybody likes to be an armchair quarterback or critic and very few want to put in the effort, even when it doesn't cost anything. It's a convenient excuse to say, well I don't have a couple hundred, let alone a couple million to throw at a long-shot project to acquire hard UFO evidence, therefore I won't bother doing anything but maybe buying a MUFON membership, attending a conference, and commenting on forums because everything else is a waste of time. It's not. In addition to hard data, the firsthand accounts of UFO witnesses are important too. In fact I dedicate most of what I do to the other witnesses ( besides myself ) out there.
 
Last edited:
You cropped off the important part (and then replaced it with my own words instead). That’s called “cherry-picking.” That would be like me telling a reporter “I hate dogs that kill babies,” and then you broadcasting just the “I hate dogs” part to convince people that I have a problem with their pets. Not an honest debate tactic.
That's a strawman rebuttal, not a valid debate tactic. Besides that I'm not debating. You've clearly included talking about classified projects, and the law says you can't. That's not "cherry picking". It's stating the obvious. So it's still a fair point to ask how many of these people are legit and how legit is the intel ( even if the source seems legit ).
 
Last edited:
The Defense Department leaked jet camera footage of the "tic tac" bogie, but as of yet, not released footage of the domed flying saucer --- What in the heck is the difference between the two, in relation to the significance of releasing one or both videos to the public?
 
I am not trying to "win" any arguments. As you said, we are all doing the "armchair phylosopher's" part. What general public and science community wants is as hard as possible physical evidence.

So in my view the kind of work that Chris is doing, could be the kind of game-changer that I’ve been looking for my entire life.

Can you please say who's Chris and what is he doing?
 
I'm sorry...my bad --- It's JANAP146 not JNAP114

ARMY-NAVY-AIR FORCE PUBLICATION 146(E) (JANAP 146[E])

That's a huge document - where does it say that witnesses can't talk about their sightings?

Well yes...the CIA decided to perpetrate and performed a gigantic UFO PSYOP hoax many years ago, when they hired George Adamski to write a book, about his excursion to Venus on a flying saucer with a Venusian humanoid. The CIA even supplied a picture of a Venusian posing in front of his parked, glowing saucer, so Adamski could publish the photo in his book; that I even bought, but did not believe in Adamski's far-out story.
It was all part an partial to the PSYOP CIA investigation, about the publics reaction to an alien encounter with an extraterrestrial being with a flying saucer.
I'm not saying that the CIA doesn't conduct PsyOps against the American people and everyone else; that would be crazy. You can't trust those people at all.

I'm saying that there's no credible evidence that this is that. And in fact there's a vast abundance of evidence that indicates that the AATIP was a real program that looked into the AAV phenomenon, and that the USS Nimitz case was a legitimate encounter with a multitude of them over a six-day period.

Yes our intelligence agencies do a lot of horrible crap, so it would be crazy to trust them. But it's also crazy to assume that everything that happens is a PsyOp. You have to exert critical reasoning skills to sift the wheat from the chaff. But now people are calling everything a PsyOp - every school shooting, every domestic terrorist attack, and now this. It's like the default assumption about every story in the news. And I can understand it, because the news is about 95% BS propaganda now. But refusing to dispassionately parse the data to find the truth is just lazy thinking, imo.
 
You've clearly included talking about classified projects, and the law says you can't. That's not "cherry picking". It's stating the obvious.
So you're saying that ufos are classified projects. Clearly they're not - these things don't even appear to be human technology. So your idea of "obvious" is my idea of "wrong."

The Defense Department leaked jet camera footage of the "tic tac" bogie, but as of yet, not released footage of the domed flying saucer --- What in the heck is the difference between the two, in relation to the significance of releasing one or both videos to the public?
If you haven't noticed, the brief and blurry FLIR clips we've seen are essentially worthless - you can't even tell what you're looking at in those clips. That's why they got declassified: they're of zero intelligence value.

But high-rez video footage where you can definitely see what's being filmed (and potentially make out any potential propulsion signature information), would be of potentially enormous intelligence value. Which is why such footage would likely never get declassified, imo.

Can you please say who's Chris and what is he doing?
Christopher O'Brien - the recently former co-host of The Paracast, is currently working on a set of three portable ufo observatories outfitted with a wide array of scientific instrumentation so he can collect data on ufo events in the San Luis Valley and broadcast it in real time online for everyone to see and analyze.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying that ufos are classified projects. Clearly they're not - these things don't even appear to be human technology. So your idea of "obvious" is my idea of "wrong."
You're the one who said ( to paraphrase ) that "they'd be insane not to classify it" ( the video and radar intel ). Personally I don't know if they did, or what the rules are around all that ( or if there even is a saucer video ). Neither do you at this point. All I've done is shown the law pertaining to disclosure of classified intel ( if it was indeed considered classified ).
 
Last edited:
The Defense Department leaked jet camera footage of the "tic tac" bogie, but as of yet, not released footage of the domed flying saucer --- What in the heck is the difference between the two, in relation to the significance of releasing one or both videos to the public?
From what I can tell, the DIA didn't leak any video. They declassified it for Zondo on the understanding it would be used for pilot training purposes, and then Zondo sandbagged them with the UFO angle, which from what I've seen so far involves unverifiable testimony that in some instances has nothing to do with the video footage. Consequently the DIA says it's not releasing anything else, and I seriously doubt the TTSA people have anything of substance. The story has created a splash in the ufology community, but we're still no farther ahead except that the media is taking the subject more seriously ( which is perhaps the most significant benefit to come out of all this so far ).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top