Posted on 12/27/2017 8:19:30 PM PST by BenLurkin
The main source in the Times article was a former Pentagon employee named Luis Elizondo, who ran a small program called Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification from 2007 until.... 2012.... Elizondo’s account was vouched for by the man who’d arranged for its funding, former Senate majority leader Harry Reid, as well as by the billionaire donor who won the contract to manage the program, Robert Bigelow.
...
“The program produced documents that describe sightings of aircraft that seemed to move at very high velocities with no visible signs of propulsion, or that hovered with no apparent means of lift,” ... “The company modified buildings in Las Vegas for the storage of metal alloys and other materials that Mr. Elizondo and program contractors said had been recovered from unidentified aerial phenomena. In addition, researchers also studied people who said that they had experienced physical effects from encounters with the objects and examined them for physiological changes.”
The straightforward presentation of these assertions implies that the authors believe them to be true. But they beg for elaboration. Were the produced documents credible? In what way were the buildings modified, and why was it necessary to modify them in order to store this material? What does it mean for an object to be associated with a phenomenon? What were the claimed physical effects, and were any physiological changes found?
Making portentous assertions out of context is a powerful technique for creating a sense of mystery and drama. Leaving a question unanswered implies that it is unanswerable. Selectively omitting key details can make a mundane fact seem uncanny. These techniques are..... better suited to Ancient Aliens than the pages of the New York Times because the net effect is to cloud rather than illuminate key issues. In this case: What exactly did Elizondo’s team uncover?
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
If Harry Reid is involved in setting up this program you can bet it is crooked.
I would bet dollars to donuts that the program and the building modifications where all a set up to put tax dollars in to the pockets of friends of Reid.
Typical.
For decades the government has been nudging disclosure forward in very tiny increments.
Virtually always there was a somewhat exciting hook.
Virtually always the conclusion included confounding inputs that would cast doubts on the veracity of the story.
It's a classic way to slowly seed new bits of truth &/or disinformation into the public consciousness/body politic while insuring there were components in the story that allowed it to be easily doubted, if not dismissed outright.
Yet, rather slickly, the new puzzle piece(s) were inserted rather firmly and somewhat subconsciously into the minds of the public and most individuals viewing/reading the narrative.
It's a bit like the magician who causes you to focus on his right hand while his left hand slips an egg in your pocket or a coin behind your ear.
The narrative nudges the revealed/disclosed info forward a bit in ways you won't or can't defend against. Yet, it offers a 'safe' way of denial to dismiss the whole thing as inconsequential.
The residue in the general public consciousness as well as at the level of individual psyche's is still firmly seeded.
For example, one of those purported factoids is that the critters come from distant planets. That claim has taken firm residence in the beliefs of most folks who allow that the reality has any veracity to it at all. Very few of them would doubt that the distant planet meme was absolutely true. They've accepted it as fact at a fairly deep level without critical thinking and without any realistic proof--and without realizing that they have effectively been brainwashed on that score.
This disclosure article and video can be viewed similarly.
On the face of it, it's not a huge deal to anyone who is well read on the topic.
The main 'big deal' is that the government is now on record attesting to the reality of the craft and by inference the reality of the critters.
Both data points, constructions on purported "reality" have been advanced another notch or 3 in the public consciousness on the part of a larger percentage of individuals in the general population.
That serves the oligarchy's goals as well as the critters' goals.
That advances the narrative a bit further--supposedly helping to decrease the likelihood of so many people going stark raving mad with fuller disclosure hits the media some weeks, months or years ahead.
However, that does not preclude the project being accurate about the phenomena.
What this article illustrates is that the New York Times is fake news.
How do you explain former pentagon official, Luis Elizondo's claim of UFO's existence beyond a reasonable doubt?
By casting doubt on the original government release?
Or by publishing the original government release at all?
Truth 640 votes / 28% Deliberate misinformation 559 votes / 24%
The most likely option is not even in the list. Our newest super secret super weapon. I put the odds of that at 75%+. Stealth is old tech. Mach 20+ is where it is at. Who cares if they can see you if you are traveling faster than lasers can be swiveled to try and take you out. It is not even our most lethal secret super weapon. Rods from God. Google it.
"Seemed to move at very high velocities with no visible signs of propulsion, or that hovered with no apparent means of lift..."
Sounds like they are describing Hillary Clinton's political support!
Maybe it was the aliens who punched Reid in the eye and told him to retire.
What does the derisive tone of so many of the poster's comments represent?
Does the tone arise more from
1. True intellectual unbelief?
2. Anxiety/fear of facing the likely true facts and their implications?
3. Fear of social ridicule if they are seen to allow that such might be real?
4. A lack of ability/willingness to conceive of how they could integrate it all into their world view, cosmology?
5. A distaste for, hostility to anything remotely like sci fi?
6. A generally contrarian personality?
7. An aversion to treating super serious stuff seriously?
8. What?
However, that hypothesis doesn't begin to account for all the data points, puzzle pieces.
All doze words and no pitchures
Money laundering.
That tends to be done in ways that are not about very controversial emotionally intense topics.
I rely on Occam and his barber. I see no holes.
What do you think that turd shaped asteroid was that came from interstellar space and whipped around the sun?
Space whale poop. ;-) It’s signature spectrally was organic. A space whale literally farted in our general direction.
Hehe.
(The crafts seen are black program. Occams barber told me)
There’s a lot of give and take here on FR. We have wit, we have wisdom, and even sometimes flame wars. Some posts are made with much forethought and crafting. Many represent a flash of inspiration.
As to the general question of what drives personal viewpoints regarding extraterrestrial biological entities, a lot of folks are influenced by a cultural mythos regarding same, some are inclined to turn the discussion towards topics rooted in mysticism, and others find the subject simply too far removed from the challenges and respites of day to day living.
Those of us who turn our analysis to the ufo phenomena need always be aware of what our preconceptions are, and try to have an understanding about the roots of those preconceptions. Not to rid ourselves completely of them, since that would undercut the construction of individual conceptions. But understand how the foundation laid by those pre-conceptions inform the edifice of conclusions which are built upon them.
Make note of the portions of the excerpt which are highlighted. Mr. Wise is 100% correct that the questions which needed to be asked, were not asked. Probably because the reporters fleshed out the answers in their minds based upon their own unrecognized preconceptions.
A similar problem is that there is a difference between believing what we have seen with our own eyes, and what we believe about what it is we have seen. The latter is driven also by preconceptions.
So, though, which of our questions do you think most folks would cluster around in some sort of frequency distribution?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.