What's new
By:

An Alleged 1953 UFO Crash and Burial Near Garrison, Utah

Here is the key part:

“I can confirm that at least some of the source material was retrieved from crash remnants or materials sourced from UFOs. Analysis of these UFOs suggests they are enabled with space-time, cloaking, transmedium travel, and gravity manipulation capabilities. “

Which means that the contracts says nothing about materials from little green men.

Critical thinkers want to know: “how can you confirm this?” “Why are you not including this confirmatory evidence in your article?”

it is likely that the confirmation is nothing more than an anonymous source. Fox Mulder maybe?

Trash journalism.
 
I can say I saw a UFO one night, right over the Seabrook (NH) Nuclear plant construction site -- it never was completed, despite billions of dollars invested in it. Anyway, it was a green light that looked the size of a star, then it swooped down over the beach breaking into two beacons of light that disappeared over the ocean. I'll never forget it, and just a couple weeks before, a pilot in Australia reported such a green light and then disappeared himself. It was in the news and that's what made my sighting so eerie because it was similar to that report.

I was wrong about Seabrook. It was partially completed in 1986 and still in operation.
 
My father described a UFO sighting he had. I'm not going to get into the details because I can't really remember them, I was a kid when he told me. But he described what he saw, the lights, the unusual way they were acting, the perception of things moving across the sky very quickly. How bizarre it was... until the aircraft made a turn that revealed that it was a 100% normal commercial jetliner. He said that had the plane not made that turn he might have been convinced he saw a UFO. The lights were a result of the way light was reflecting off the curved surfaces. His perception of the distance of the lights was not accurate, it was somewhat of an optical illusion.

Seeing something strange is not evidence that people visit us from other planets. That conclusion requires a much more conclusive level of evidence. If you see something that you can't identify it means that you can't identify it.
 
Gameface said:
My father described a UFO sighting he had. I'm not going to get into the details because I can't really remember them, I was a kid when he told me. But he described what he saw, the lights, the unusual way they were acting, the perception of things moving across the sky very quickly. How bizarre it was... until the aircraft made a turn that revealed that it was a 100% normal commercial jetliner. He said that had the plane not made that turn he might have been convinced he saw a UFO. The lights were a result of the way light was reflecting off the curved surfaces. His perception of the distance of the lights was not accurate, it was somewhat of an optical illusion.

Seeing something strange is not evidence that people visit us from other planets. That conclusion requires a much more conclusive level of evidence. If you see something that you can't identify it means that you can't identify it.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm not totally convinced by what I saw, but it was strange. Some people said it could've been experimentation with lasers as the plant is near the former SAC base in Portsmouth NH.
 
tonstermits said:
Screw ufo's I want to see a body.
Click to expand...
girls_in_bikini_02.jpg
 
silesian said:
Here is the key part:

“I can confirm that at least some of the source material was retrieved from crash remnants or materials sourced from UFOs. Analysis of these UFOs suggests they are enabled with space-time, cloaking, transmedium travel, and gravity manipulation capabilities. “

Which means that the contracts says nothing about materials from little green men.

Critical thinkers want to know: “how can you confirm this?” “Why are you not including this confirmatory evidence in your article?”

it is likely that the confirmation is nothing more than an anonymous source. Fox Mulder maybe?

Trash journalism.
Click to expand...

I have no real idea what to make of Delonge's TTSA, or exactly why the Pentagon is signing off on this. I don't trust anybody in this story, which basically all started when the New York Times highlighted the released videos of Navy pilot sightings, in December of 2017. The Navy then admitted, "yeah, this happened, and yeah, we don't know what our pilots saw", and then this year the Navy revised guidelines to remove the ridicule fear for pilots reporting such things.

Whatever, for whatever reason(s), the army is interested in the claims of TTSA. I've had a lifelong interest in the subject of UFO's, since I was a kid in the 50's. I'm fully aware of all the impossibilities involved and cited, fully aware of the ridicule factor, but just never cared. Because, like other Fortean subjects, I've found the subject to be an excellent venue for thinking outside the box of consensus paradigms, and I have nothing to lose. I'd rather do that then simply accept conventional wisdom, believing new ideas and discoveries are more likely to be made by people who are willing to think outside the box.

As far Roswell, I've read everything, but on a personal level, I knew an enlisted man stationed there at the time of the incident, and I admit it was an honor to hear his first hand account of this iconic event. I know he was not simply lying to me about the material he and his fellow enlisted men handled. Which proves nothing, just cool to have known someone who was there, and could relate a witness account to me.

Regardless, with respect to this TTSA-US Army contract, there are more in depth looks here:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...th-rockstar-tom-delonges-ufo-research-company

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...cademys-fantastic-ufo-mystery-material-claims
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top