The Nimitz Encounters

It would appear you are correct, his tactics of shouting down and blocking anyone on twitter that questions his viewpoint is very immature, but that's just my opinion...As you may know, there's much back and forth on twitter lately in regards to TTSA, JG and Dark Journalist are certainly stirring the pot a bit their own...I do not grasp the motive behind bashing TTSA so fiercely so early on, wait and see what transpires before calling foul, but that's just me...
...
Taking an adversarial position with regard to the 300lb gorilla in the room is the only way to sustain relevancy when these people otherwise have no new information to offer. Attacking every word and missing line item in this story is basically riding TTSA's coattails, because if they posted/commented about anything else, nobody would care.

World governments have been retrieving crashed ufos for decades now. It would only seem logical that these devices have been back engineered to some degree.
That's a leap, imo. The way that technology is evolving today, we're seeing that major advancements demand the integration of myriad global production infrastructure. If the government has acquired advanced alien technology, it's very probable that we're still hundreds or even thousands of years away from having the underlying scientific and technological capabilities required replicate that technology. It would probably be akin to dropping a broken iPhone in ancient Athens: they couldn't learn anything from it, or replicate it, because even the most basic tools required to study and understand it hadn't been invented yet. It would probably end up as a paperweight.

I bring John's posts here cause i think we need to hear all voices, especially on this matter. If theres problems and questions pop up, they should be discussed. If we only hear here what we want to hear, were really no better than the extremes of the spectrum, namely the true believers and the pseudo-skeptics. Prevents this place from becoming an echo chamber.
That's fine, but I've listened to John Greenewald's podcasts about this, and I've read his writings about this, and it's painfully obvious that no matter what comes out, he's chosen to have a problem with it. First he claims that it's "Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program" because some crappy bureaucratic office got the name of the program wrong - and from that mistake he started the whole "it wasn't a UFO program it was an aircraft program OMGz0r!" BS. Then when that mistake gets corrected offically...he sticks with his original BS claim that the AATIP wasn't a UFO program (and we know directly from Sen. Reid that it was/is a UFO investigation program...call me crazy but I'll believe one of the three top-level Senators who founded the program over John Greenewald). Then he (and a gazillion other cynics) dishes out about 18 months of hysterical paranoid BS over the missing authorization documentation for these three videos. And we finally get to see the documentation...and lo and behold, he has problems with it. Shocking.

I'm sick of these people being proven wrong, over and over again, and yet trudging on as if they still have a point - dismissing their own errors unapologetically, getting the clarification they've been clamoring for and then bitching about it, and continuing their wicked and transparently desperate little charade to remain relevant by pandering to the army of sniveling assholes (I mean, "the cynics") out there.

Sure, a healthy skepticism is important, no matter how much evidence, credible eyewitnesses, and official documentation gets released along the way. But for crissakes, it's insanely unreasonable to expect to see 100% of the information about anything: there will always be gaps in the available knowledge. I think that John knows this, and has chosen to willfully exploit this inescapable logical reality to keep harping against TTSA and the AATIP and Luis Elizondo ad nauseum, because dong so is the only easy way that he can get people like me to waste my valuable time reading his increasingly petty little blog.

Pro tip: Instead of harping against others to remain relevant, do some more original research or produce some more TV shows or whatever. That's what made John Greenewald relevant in the first place: he's done some good work and found some meaningful info that moved this field forward. The Black Vault database is still one of the best assets in modern ufology - that's great stuff.

But quibbling about redacted information only makes him look like the RussiaGate fanatics scouring the Mueller Report hoping to find those dastardly Russkies under the redacted parts. It's preposterous and infantile.

I hope that John meets some elevated hippie pagan who can pull his head out of his ass and get him back on track doing his own cool original work again, instead of shitting on somebody else's 24/7 like some jealous little twit with a throbbing inferiority complex.
 
Last edited:
Thomas, have you looked at his article on AATIP timeline, where he points out lots of contradictions in the narrative that weve been given via Elizondo and others?

Whats your tought on it? Do you think hes wrong?

I think its important to ask all the tough questions so we can determine i were getting the truth or just some manufactured narrative which serves some purpose.
 
Last edited:
One question I have regarding this form, why didnt they show it in 2017 when they released the videos? Why wait this long and give skeptics time to question the origin of those videos?
 
Last edited:
Thomas, have you looked at his article on AATIP timeline, where he points out lots of contradictions in what weve been given via Elizondo and others?

Whats your tought on it?
I think I mentioned this earlier in another thread, but it looks to me like John is peering into a darkened room and imagining all kinds of subterfuge and conspiracies and contradictions going on in there, where a little light on the subject could dispel all such delusions and fantasies.

For example, he makes a big deal out of the fact that sometimes people have said that the AATIP began in 2007, and other times people have said (sometimes even the same people) that it began in 2008. He thinks that this kind of thing indicates some big hole in the story, but I disagree: I think it's far more likely that the program was conceptualized and the funding earmark got approved in 2007 (and one could say that this phase was "the beginning" of the program), and that the funding came through and somebody sat down at a desk to start working on the program in 2008 (which is an equally valid phase to regard as "the beginning" of the program). Definitions can be ambiguous without invoking any Earth-shattering revelations. And people's recollections and their understanding of details vary, especially about events that transpired more than a decade ago. AAWSAP or AATIP? Honestly who gives af? Sure I'd like more clarity on meaningless little details like this (and I do believe that "AATIP" was a nickname, which is why John's FOIA requests came up donuts for over a year), but I'm sure it'll all come out eventually, and then the anally retentive historians of the world can sleep at night. I'm looking at the aggregate data set, and the things that we can have high confidence in, because the big points are much more significant. I could make a list but that would be almost as tedious to read as John's timeline. You know what would be far more suspicious than the various inconsistencies between people's recollections and statements? If they were all identical. In reality, people make mistakes, and fill in gaps in their own information with assumptions, and generally have shitty memories. So John's list of "contradictions" looks a whole lot like ordinary human frailty to me.

John seems eager to bend over backwards to make mountains out of molehills with regard to every aspect of this story. But I prefer to employ Occam's Razor: the most mundane explanation is usually the correct one (to paraphrase). And so far that's worked out, because John's eagerness to turn every missing byte of data into some scandalous "revelation" has failed. In my view it's logical to expect this trend to continue. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...in fact, a cigar is almost always just a cigar. Reading into the missing data points is a lot like reading tea leaves: it may be an amusing diversion that keeps folks going back to his blog, but chances are it's all just a bunch of BS.

I'd be perfectly content to be proven wrong, btw - but I have yet to see a single significant finding from John or anyone else - empirical evidence that something more than hazy recollections and ambiguous definitions is at work here. A guy could go nuts looking for scandals in missing pieces of data - and that's not how analytical reasoning works. A counterargument requires positive data, and a viable hypothesis. I have yet to see any of the "TTSA cynics" offer anything like that. To me they all look like conspiracy theorists reaching for a viable counterargument, and, as yet anyway, failing to come up with one.

One question I have regarding this form, why didnt they show it in 2017 when they released the videos? Why wait this long and give skeptics time to question the origin of those videos?
My read on George Knapp's parting "thank you" to Sen. Harry Reid in that segment, is that Harry Reid finally got around to providing that document for public release. I think the DoD and the intelligence community is Pissed about this whole thing, and stonewalling at every turn. So it seems safe to assume that it took a guy with Reid's enormous clout to get hold of the damn thing (or at least, an early version of it), and hand it off for public consumption.

Btw: I realize that I'm taking a rather snarky tone here - it's not personal at all. It's the result of seeing an endless stream of cynical criticisms of this story over the last year and a half, and seeing those criticisms eat shit as more info has come out. For example, Greenewald's insistence that it was "Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program"...even though the actual effing Director of that program said that it was "Aerospace." And the people like Mick West who sniveled about the insignificance of the Tic-Tac footage...and then we recently heard from people who saw the original, unedited, hi-rez version of that entire intercept...and clearly that complete footage was mind-blowing and showed staggering performance characteristics. And the people who falsely asserted that the videos weren't released through official channels (even though Luis Elizondo would be in jail facing enhanced interrogation techniques if he'd "leaked" them)...and now we see the actual proper official form that was submitted to get these videos released.

I understand that some of the data is unclear, and I want more clarity too. But it's also easy to see that the majority of the defense/intelligence community is against what's happening, and TTSA is walking a very fine line here because there's a lynch mob inside of the government just waiting for them to slip up. Names are being redacted, probably to protect the people who are trying to help us. Operational details and methods and sources are going to be obscured because that's the legal edifice of the national security apparatus. We're obviously a long way from 100% military/government transparency, and fighting for every millimeter. The blithe naiveté of people who think that this should all be as black and white as a high school history book, just drives me crazy.

This isn't that. We're watching a tug-of-war playing out between conflicting factions within the military intelligence apparatus. People who think that this should all be nice and clean and clear, simply have no grasp of what's going on here.
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
I'd be perfectly content to be proven wrong, btw - but I have yet to see a single significant finding from John or anyone else - empirical evidence that something more than hazy recollections and ambiguous definitions is at work here. A guy could go nuts looking for scandals in missing pieces of data - and that's not how analytical reasoning works. A counterargument requires positive data, and a viable hypothesis. I have yet to see any of the "TTSA cynics" offer anything like that. To me they all look like conspiracy theorists reaching for a viable counterargument, and, as yet anyway, failing to come up with one.

Whenever John Greenewald is asked directly what his main issue is with TTSA he NEVER answers but goes on the defensive with his blabbering off that by asking we have not read his writings on the subject, shouting down the individual and most of the time blocking that person from speaking to him again directly...

I don't want to turn this thread into a negative bashing of JG, he's done some fine work in the past, but jeez, he is really going off the deep end relentlessly bashing TTSA with no foundation or evidence to back him...To me its just blind aggression towards TTSA like he has jealous butthurt or something...

...
 
I dont know about that. Greenewald is very respected among the UFO researcher community, even skeptics respect his finds, when it serves their own narrative naturally. I doubt he would attack TTSA, AATIP and Elizondo cause of just some petty personal grudge he happens to have with them. Hes done this a long time with the US government, and I think he smells something that doesnt agree with him.

For the record Im not sure what to think about Elizondo and AATIP, im conflicted. I just dont see why it would be a simple scam like some keep saying. Theyre big names with reputations and scams tend to come out sooner or later. Would they really just sacrifice it all for that, for some money venture that seems like a longshot? It would be nuts. Either they have something they believe in at least or its somekind of operation in progress.

I guess well have to see how it goes.
 
Last edited:

nivek

As Above So Below
If you're saying he cannot succumb to personal grunges or is above immature behaviour then I would have to disagree with you, unless he isn't a human being and is some AI or alien instead lol...

He is becoming known as Blockvault, even this morning blocking people on twitter who question him or disagree with him, then goes bashing that person who can no longer see what he says about them...I think that is pathetic behavior...

...
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
If you're saying he cannot succumb to personal grunges or is above immature behaviour then I would have to disagree with you, unless he isn't a human being and is some AI or alien instead lol...

He is becoming known as Blockvault, even this morning blocking people on twitter who question him or disagree with him, then goes bashing that person who can no longer see what he says about them...I think that is pathetic behavior...

...

I can't speak to any of his online behavior because I don't partake in any of that but up to this point he was well thought of and has been doing some useful work. Within 'ufology' such as it is maybe this constitutes a form of peer review. Academics can become very sharp and snarky with one another so why not JG? Especially in a cat-shit-nasty arena like this one. Doesn't automatically make him wrong. Let the man dig away and find discrepancies. If TTSA can properly address them then great! If they can't then let that speak for itself.

If I am evaluating something mundane like a car or a firearm and the seller has made a claim and produced some sort of provenance to back it up I am well within my right to question something that is out of the norm or just seems strange. In some cases I've found the seller had been deceived themselves, in some cases they were lying and in others it was just ignorance. In all cases it requires a light touch to dance around the personalities usually involved.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I can't speak to any of his online behavior because I don't partake in any of that but up to this point he was well thought of and has been doing some useful work. Within 'ufology' such as it is maybe this constitutes a form of peer review. Academics can become very sharp and snarky with one another so why not JG? Especially in a cat-shit-nasty arena like this one. Doesn't automatically make him wrong. Let the man dig away and find discrepancies. If TTSA can properly address them then great! If they can't then let that speak for itself.

If I am evaluating something mundane like a car or a firearm and the seller has made a claim and produced some sort of provenance to back it up I am well within my right to question something that is out of the norm or just seems strange. In some cases I've found the seller had been deceived themselves, in some cases they were lying and in others it was just ignorance. In all cases it requires a light touch to dance around the personalities usually involved.

Greenewald goes well beyond just questioning something that appears off or strange, he is going out of his way to discredit TTSA to a point even Mick West, who is a hard core sceptic, has highlighted to John his errors in reasoning to which John still ignores...Greenewald is on a smear campaign and it using any outlet he can to push his twisted logic and reasoning...You can see John and Mick West debating on Mick's twitter page...

2019_05_04_05.35.10.png
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Greenewald goes well beyond just questioning something that appears off or strange, he is going out of his way to discredit TTSA to a point even Mick West, who is a hard core sceptic, has highlighted to John his errors in reasoning to which John still ignores...Greenewald is on a smear campaign and it using any outlet he can to push his twisted logic and reasoning...You can see John and Mick West debating on Mick's twitter page...

View attachment 6974

I believe you but never heard of Mick West. If JG is spewing something in error then by all means let someone call him on it. If they can, I get your point.

Rather than talk about personalities, any idea why that particular release form hadn't been properly filled out and is in variance with the many that JG has received in the past? Seems minor but that's the message, not the messenger.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
never heard of Mick West.

I don't know why but I am surprised by that...

Rather than talk about personalities, any idea why that particular release form hadn't been properly filled out and is in variance with the many that JG has received in the past? Seems minor but that's the message, not the messenger.

That isn't the message and JG isn't the messenger but he does dance around the real reasons he has such loathing for TTSA when asked...JG simply doesn't grasp the bigger picture of what's really going on here...Who was the one that claimed AATIP wasn't about UFOs?...:ohmy8:

A minor discrepancy like an incomplete form sounds more like the normal state of a government bureaucracy than a reflection of Elizondo's character...On the form the names are blacked out and Elizondo has already stated that wasn't even done by him, that the green light came from someone else...There are discrepancies in my own military documents, my name is misspelled on one document, incomplete information is obvious on another document, that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
D5ufjFFWsAATWTA.jpeg
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Keith Basterfieldcommented that in the George Knapp and Elizondo interview back in February 2018, Elizondo said; "So that process was followed, and what most people aren't aware of, there were also emails. It wasn't just a form that was submitted"...So what was on those emails I wonder?...

...
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
There are discrepancies in my own military documents, my name is misspelled on one document, incomplete information is obvious on another document, that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy...

True, but your military records are not subject to the scrutiny that the documents that accompany the video release are. I don't doubt they came from DoD or that they're real. You might think TTSA would have anticipated something like this.

I do wonder about the context, timing etc and conspiracy is probably not the right word for how I'm looking at this. Not sure what is, but that doesn't seem like it.

I have no reason to believe anyone who just says 'trust me' especially when this is the subject.
 
Alejandro Rojas did the required legwork to get to the bottom of the DD 1910 controversy (i.e., he actually called the people involved and asked them questions directly, rather than sniping at them from the shadows like ill-tempered children), and here's what it boils down to:

"Not everyone was satisfied with this leak of the DD 1910. They argued this was still not an official statement. Fortunately, the DoD responded to a request by Greenewald for a confirmation that the DD 1910 KLAS leaked was real.

The DoD responded:

“I can confirm that the form DD1910 you asked about is a valid DD1910. The standard procedure is for blocks 1-7 on the form to be filled out by the submitter before sending to DOPSR; however, occasional exceptions have occurred. The submitter is responsible for any disclaimers on the form as approved, and also abiding by any amendments that may be included in additional communications from DOPSR to the submitter as part of the approval process. Per block 3 of this form DD1910, the submitter requested release of the videos solely for research and analysis purposes by the US government agencies and industry partners, and not for general public release.”
So Elizondo and Kean were right, and the DoD press department’s initial response regarding the videos was wrong. The DoD spokesperson did not directly address why they made their initial claim of having not released the videos. However, they added at the end of their response the claim that the videos were not released “for general public release.” It is readily apparent this is not accurate.

The DD 1910 is a request for “public release.” This DD 1910 was approved, so the videos were indeed approved for public release. The DoD spokesperson may have been referencing a note in the form that says the videos are not being released for “publication” which is not the same thing as the general public. A publication is an article, book, journals, etc.

The request said the videos would be released for “research and analysis ONLY and info sharing with other USG and industry partners for the purpose of developing a database to help identify, analyze, and ultimately defeat UAS threats.” There is nothing that prohibits these databases from being publicly available. Further, again, this DD 1910 is a form to approve information for “public release,” and it was approved.

Nowhere does this form limit the release to not include the “general public.” My guess as to why they added this note to the end of their response to Greenewald is that they are trying to justify their original false statement that the “DoD has not released videos related to this program.” Even if for some reason you agree the videos were not released for the “general public,” it is still not accurate to say the “DoD has not released videos related to this program.”

In the end, the DoD has now admitted the DD 1910 proving the DoD released the videos is real. The DoD did release the videos, just as Kean and The New York Times had discovered, and Elizondo had claimed."

DoD Confirms They Released Navy F-18 FLIR UFO Videos | Alejandro Rojas on Patreon
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Seriously?...Of course that document isn't going to say UFO nor say alien spacecraft...

2019_05_06_16.24.01.png
 
Top