Search results

Did you go to the original Disclosure video, open the transcript, and ctrl+f for "briefcase"? Both of those are from the testimony of Stu Little, as discussed above.

As for the actual bill: That's pretty long and unsexy - I assume; I certainly haven't read it - so I can see why the websites went with "Congress admits UFOs not man-made"! :D

I think this is everything in that report: From Page 9: Section 703. Modification of requirement for office to address unidentified aerospace-undersea phenomena Section 703 renames the Office established to carry out the duties of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, and clarifies...

Compare with: [article url=https://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2021/07/31/the-ufo-that-never-was-the-calvine-photographs/]The Sun (October 10th 2020) [claimed that] ‘a dossier into Britain’s most significant UFO sighting is to be kept secret for another 50 years’ adding further layers to perceived...

Meaningful specifics are always nice. Maybe he/the team will go into them at a later date when more information has come in, when things have become clearer, and/or when there's less necessity for confidentiality.

He did provide an answer to that one but it didn't go into the specifics. I put a summary of the most relevant parts here though: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-original-calvine-ufo-photo.12571/post-277738

True, and I also quoted its use by Vice. But I have now added a few extra words and pointed out that I abridged it from the full version. I don't think I changed the meaning in any way, merely streamlined it. Hopefully we all agree.

Maybe he was less convinced of his source a year ago - though open to the information - but given new things that have come to light (not all of which we here are aware of I'm sure) his source's assertions may have been backed up. Which seems logical and understandable. Also, he didn't...

It's already been posted here but I think probably the quickest way to find it is to go to the original Disclosure video, open the transcript, and ctrl+f for "briefcase".

I saw those headlines and articles yesterday and found them perplexing and comical. The Hill one uses the term "UFO" 35 times whereas it isn't used once in the Select Committee on Intelligence's report. It's misinformation and bad journalism at its best. Also compare what Vice wrote (bolding...

I think if the MoD did try to keep it hidden then the evidence for that is something I'm unaware of. Given the poster being on the office wall for years, Pope's having reviewed the file and related the case in his book (presumably he would have been free to include a photo if he'd had one)...

From what I understand there's no record of that and the people who might be able to answer the question are dead. But I've heard the suspicion voiced that Endell Laird would have likely decided not to publish the pictures in accordance with his position on the committee, and Stu Little also...

The one on D-notices:

Exactly. So in 1990 we don't have the internet and "responding to requests" is different to "releasing". I'm always curious when I read people say "they didn't release the pictures" - how did they think that would be done ? By what avenue? Undertaken by what manpower? Obviously a lot easier...

They definitely do. I believe I've already posted info to that effect but, if not, I'm sure I could find it. I don't know what Elizondo does but if he's the prime investigator in a particular case visiting places, talking to people, asking for records and sharing (most of) what he's learned...

Scotland.

I want to ask him about that because: i) for sure the copied negatives would be sequential since they would have been made by the Record; ii) iirc when he said they were sequential he was saying that's what the guy at the Record told him about the originals (but I really should double check on...

He has talked of some of those reasons saying that there are a number of them not connected with the photo itself, and that he's also open to it being a hoax (most likely model or cutout close to the camera) and so may change his mind again - which is of course the correct position. I don't...

Yep, may be comparable. Those cables are overhead electric cables for the railway - most likely further away but also around 3 times thicker (at a minimum).