nivek
As Above So Below
Here's a write up in response to the badly written Kloor article:
AATIP, Elizondo and biased Journalism: Asking Real Questions
An article written by Keith Kloor for the Intercept was released recently. The title of which you would openly consider as being true blue conspiracy if you didn’t think it was written by a professional journalist.
‘THE MEDIA LOVES THIS UFO EXPERT WHO SAYS HE WORKED FOR AN OBSCURE PENTAGON PROGRAM. DID HE?’
Some hardened TTSA hating conspiracy theorists jumped on this straight away without thinking. Their opening gambit: Elizondo is a fraud, TTSA are a shambles. Conspiracy is rife within Ufology, even some elements of journalism. Unverifiable claims that are severely contradicted by very open and obvious evidence. Some less hostile folk have said it is about asking questions.
To be fair they’re right, it is about asking questions and not following blind faith in conjecture or speculation. We can all agree that asking questions of the spokesmen and women for the Department of Defense (DOD) officially clarifies their important position on various issues. The UFO issue is a vital one in that regard, as an everyday blogger not even remotely connected to any government, I can see this for myself. We can agree that a unified position on any given topic is an important part of the ‘spokespersons’ role at the DOD.
Yet, we see alarming inconsistencies which need to be addressed (..and will be, I’m told…).
How is it we saw varying statements on the acronym terminology of ‘AATIP’, where Aviation was mistakenly used instead of Aerospace? Or varying statements on whether AATIP studied Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon? Most recently, how spokesperson Mr. Sherwood directly stated their position (Pentagon) on whether Luis Elizondo worked for a ‘UFO program’ or for AATIP at all. Mr. Sherwood is the spokesperson who recently conformed that AATIP studied UAP. The same person recently stated he couldn’t confirm or deny Elizondo worked at AATIP (contradicting Dana White’s 2017 position).
Let’s be clear, these are interesting questions. However, they are interesting as there is a wealth of contradictions across the board. In each contrasting statement from the DOD we see heavily opposing data, documents and testimony from high ranking officials. It is enough to make us step back and wonder what is going on? How can this be?. The honest truth, maybe it is difficult to make decisive conclusions based on the given single source spokesperson’s statements. Yet, this is exactly what we have just witnessed from the article in the Intercept.
The premise of Mr.Kloor’s article is based around there being ‘no discernible evidence’ to suggest Luis Elizondo worked for AATIP. An amazing claim to make. Let’s break this down, firstly the spokesperson quoted (Sherwood) by Kloor couldn’t verify what another previous spokesperson (Dana White) had released via the Bryan Bender, Politico (and others) article back in December, 2017.
Secondly, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest Elizondo worked for AATIP. The confirmation via spokesperson Dana White for one (who is ironically quoted by Keith Kloor himself in his own article). The testimony of Senator Harry Reid (who actually created the AATIP program), the testimony of Eric Davis (a physicist with AATIP), Hal Puthoff (AATIP physicist) also verified his position and has reached out to Alejandro Rojas;
Then we have the official verified resignation letter of Luis Elizondo that states he was involved with UAPs during his time at DOD. We have the redacted attachment (soon to be made unclassified) made available to George Knapp that has been witnessed by George and Bryan Bender with Luis Elizondo’s name under AATIP. Chris Mellon plus Steve Justice have vouched for Luis Elizondo in his role. Then we have the NYT and Politico journalists who were shown documents of his employment as AATIP Director.
Redacted AATIP list which reportedly contains Luis Elizondo
Any Ufologist worth his or her salt has knowledge of this information. This isn’t some grand conspiracy to defraud everyone. Bryan Bender took to social media to call out the article’s claims;
-Bryan Bender on Social Media responding directly to Mr. Kloor
It is very clear that there is a lot of contradiction in Sherwood’s statement with regard to Luis Elizondo and AATIP. It is alarming that Kieth Kloor concluded that there is no evidence. It is no surprise that John Greenewald backed these claims having previously been debunked on the last 3 claims regarding AATIP. Aviation was in fact Aerospace, the DD1910 documents were genuine and proved the DOD authorised the release of the 3 videos, and AATIP studied UAP/UFOs. Sadly this pattern goes beyond ‘asking difficult questions’. This pattern possibly suggests extreme, thinly disguised bias which is on full view. Concluding on limited data is poor journalism and poor researching, unless of course the truth is yours to manipulate.
I would ask people to send FOIAs, to ask why the contradictions, to seek real answers.
Yes, we should ask questions of the spokesperson and of the author in search of real truth.
.
AATIP, Elizondo and biased Journalism: Asking Real Questions
An article written by Keith Kloor for the Intercept was released recently. The title of which you would openly consider as being true blue conspiracy if you didn’t think it was written by a professional journalist.
‘THE MEDIA LOVES THIS UFO EXPERT WHO SAYS HE WORKED FOR AN OBSCURE PENTAGON PROGRAM. DID HE?’
Some hardened TTSA hating conspiracy theorists jumped on this straight away without thinking. Their opening gambit: Elizondo is a fraud, TTSA are a shambles. Conspiracy is rife within Ufology, even some elements of journalism. Unverifiable claims that are severely contradicted by very open and obvious evidence. Some less hostile folk have said it is about asking questions.
To be fair they’re right, it is about asking questions and not following blind faith in conjecture or speculation. We can all agree that asking questions of the spokesmen and women for the Department of Defense (DOD) officially clarifies their important position on various issues. The UFO issue is a vital one in that regard, as an everyday blogger not even remotely connected to any government, I can see this for myself. We can agree that a unified position on any given topic is an important part of the ‘spokespersons’ role at the DOD.
Yet, we see alarming inconsistencies which need to be addressed (..and will be, I’m told…).
How is it we saw varying statements on the acronym terminology of ‘AATIP’, where Aviation was mistakenly used instead of Aerospace? Or varying statements on whether AATIP studied Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon? Most recently, how spokesperson Mr. Sherwood directly stated their position (Pentagon) on whether Luis Elizondo worked for a ‘UFO program’ or for AATIP at all. Mr. Sherwood is the spokesperson who recently conformed that AATIP studied UAP. The same person recently stated he couldn’t confirm or deny Elizondo worked at AATIP (contradicting Dana White’s 2017 position).
Let’s be clear, these are interesting questions. However, they are interesting as there is a wealth of contradictions across the board. In each contrasting statement from the DOD we see heavily opposing data, documents and testimony from high ranking officials. It is enough to make us step back and wonder what is going on? How can this be?. The honest truth, maybe it is difficult to make decisive conclusions based on the given single source spokesperson’s statements. Yet, this is exactly what we have just witnessed from the article in the Intercept.
-Keith Kloor, writing in the Intercept, 2019…there is one crucial detail missing from “Unidentified,” as well as from all the many stories that have quoted Elizondo since he outed himself nearly two years ago to a wide-eyed news media: There is no discernible evidence that he ever worked for a government UFO program, much less led one.
The premise of Mr.Kloor’s article is based around there being ‘no discernible evidence’ to suggest Luis Elizondo worked for AATIP. An amazing claim to make. Let’s break this down, firstly the spokesperson quoted (Sherwood) by Kloor couldn’t verify what another previous spokesperson (Dana White) had released via the Bryan Bender, Politico (and others) article back in December, 2017.
Secondly, there is an abundance of evidence to suggest Elizondo worked for AATIP. The confirmation via spokesperson Dana White for one (who is ironically quoted by Keith Kloor himself in his own article). The testimony of Senator Harry Reid (who actually created the AATIP program), the testimony of Eric Davis (a physicist with AATIP), Hal Puthoff (AATIP physicist) also verified his position and has reached out to Alejandro Rojas;
– Hal Puthoff, 2019 via Alejandro RojasVia email Dr. Hall Puthoff says he thinks the @theintercept article was a hit piece. He writes: “Documentation otherwise is dense. I reported to him often in the Pentagon as an AATIP contractor.
Then we have the official verified resignation letter of Luis Elizondo that states he was involved with UAPs during his time at DOD. We have the redacted attachment (soon to be made unclassified) made available to George Knapp that has been witnessed by George and Bryan Bender with Luis Elizondo’s name under AATIP. Chris Mellon plus Steve Justice have vouched for Luis Elizondo in his role. Then we have the NYT and Politico journalists who were shown documents of his employment as AATIP Director.
Redacted AATIP list which reportedly contains Luis Elizondo
Any Ufologist worth his or her salt has knowledge of this information. This isn’t some grand conspiracy to defraud everyone. Bryan Bender took to social media to call out the article’s claims;
There is plenty of evidence and testimony to support Mr. Elizondo’s role in the effort. You either ignored it or couldn’t find it or didn’t try. And it seems your sources had a very partial picture.
…Seems they whoever he called didn’t know much either or didn’t try to learn. A spokesperson saying they can’t verify something does not mean it didn’t happen. Especially in the Pentagon
-Bryan Bender on Social Media responding directly to Mr. Kloor
It is very clear that there is a lot of contradiction in Sherwood’s statement with regard to Luis Elizondo and AATIP. It is alarming that Kieth Kloor concluded that there is no evidence. It is no surprise that John Greenewald backed these claims having previously been debunked on the last 3 claims regarding AATIP. Aviation was in fact Aerospace, the DD1910 documents were genuine and proved the DOD authorised the release of the 3 videos, and AATIP studied UAP/UFOs. Sadly this pattern goes beyond ‘asking difficult questions’. This pattern possibly suggests extreme, thinly disguised bias which is on full view. Concluding on limited data is poor journalism and poor researching, unless of course the truth is yours to manipulate.
I would ask people to send FOIAs, to ask why the contradictions, to seek real answers.
Yes, we should ask questions of the spokesperson and of the author in search of real truth.
.