4 ms·

Great science fiction but in our world somebody long ago would have leaked hi-res photos and other proof of these craft if they existed. This type of informati

Great science fiction but in our world somebody long ago would have leaked hi-res photos and other proof of these craft if they existed. This type of information would inspire countless Snowdens to risk life in prison just for the sake of informing humanity, much less their desire for fame.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
graderjs 4y ago
> Great science fiction but in our world somebody It's crazy if you think it's science fiction, as it hardly is. All these things happened in Congress recently. The law, the people involved: why would you needsmust think it was made up? That's crazy. You can go and see the legislation for yourself--just because this story is not being told in the NYTimes, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You trust everything the NYTimes tells you? You trust all those NYTimes people? People of high integrity? journalists, truthtellers, friends? Or circumscribers? Of the allowed truth of the world? Permitted perception. Censorious mouthpiece of the official line. Well...now the official line includes these lines, ha! If these NYTimes "journalists" told you the thoughts that were in your head, would you trust yourself or would you believe them? You got to think for yourself, man! :) > This type of information would inspire countless Snowdens Perhaps. Although Snowden didn't bring high-res photos of his NSA workstation...He brought documents. And he was probably a patsy for a deliberate limited hangout. The security level could simply be more stringent. Snowden didn't work surrounded by armed guards. He didn't fly-in / fly-out or live on site, or in an underground facility. Plus the difference of "public accountability and oversight" versus "unacknowledged special access programs" -- it's easier to go and intimidate or disappear possible whistleblowers for projects that "don't exist" than it is for a big public facing agency and corporation. I think what you're really looking at is a crazy level of security that managed to hide itself through sophisticated counter intelligence and manipulation of the public and congress. Some of which the article delves into, which you should read if you haven't already. I'm not sure of the specifics but--don't we still "fail to have" detailed plans of US nuclear weapons? I mean there's plenty of "pro-am" speculation / obsessiveness but has any "countless Snowdens" leaked these? I mean, given plausible animosity towards US policy / threat of imminent worldwide destruction, "Just for the sake of informing humanity" you'd think there'd be these sorts of folks, too. But again, I think the security level of that nuclear info is simply too high. Which is sort of the point. I don't know why people are doubtful that a country that could: create nuclear weapons and a functioning liberal democratic economy would somehow be so incompetent as to have no idea to protect its secrets. It's said that the "UFO issue" is classified even higher than nuclear secrets. So that explains it. Unless it's uncomfortable for you to believe for some reason...which makes sense too. My view is the whole "government secrecy vs disclosure obsession" is really just another psyop: people become "dependent on government authority" to "tell them the truth" about the world, a dynamic that only increases government power in that dynamic, likely artificed by the government itself. While concealing whatever embarrassing reality is there. There's plenty of evidence that you can see if you go looking, or you can explain away, the choice is yours. But does it really matter? I mean if you don't have concrete proof either way, who cares, right? At some point when you're saying that millions of people who have claimed to have seen UFOs or been abducted, are actually the crazy ones, but you know what really happened in their lives, then you start to look like the psychotic...so either way you go it's a fine line. I think people are realizing that now...things are changing, but...it all still seems manipulated to me. Oh yeah, and it's funny that historically the counterintelligence folks who were most involved in the "debunking" narratives, and the issuing elaborate reasonable-sounding justifications for public denials, were among those most in the know about the secrets, and had experienced them themselves! Professional liars to the extreme! Some of them redeem themselves in their old age...or is it just another psyop? :) No wonder they want endless secrecy and narrative control-freakery, the whole debacle is all so embarrassing, they're just covering their arses to ensure it never comes out while they're alive. Scared little men holding gems in a cave. You bring them out into the sunshine maybe we can all enjoy their beauty. :)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

graderjs 4y ago

> Great science fiction but in our world somebody It's crazy if you think it's science fiction, as it hardly is. All these things happened in Congress recently. The law, the people involved: why would you needsmust think it was made up? That's crazy. You can go and see the legislation for yourself--just because this story is not being told in the NYTimes, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You trust everything the NYTimes tells you? You trust all those NYTimes people? People of high integrity? journalists, truthtellers, friends? Or circumscribers? Of the allowed truth of the world? Permitted perception. Censorious mouthpiece of the official line. Well...now the official line includes these lines, ha! If these NYTimes "journalists" told you the thoughts that were in your head, would you trust yourself or would you believe them? You got to think for yourself, man! :) > This type of information would inspire countless Snowdens Perhaps. Although Snowden didn't bring high-res photos of his NSA workstation...He brought documents. And he was probably a patsy for a deliberate limited hangout. The security level could simply be more stringent. Snowden didn't work surrounded by armed guards. He didn't fly-in / fly-out or live on site, or in an underground facility. Plus the difference of "public accountability and oversight" versus "unacknowledged special access programs" -- it's easier to go and intimidate or disappear possible whistleblowers for projects that "don't exist" than it is for a big public facing agency and corporation. I think what you're really looking at is a crazy level of security that managed to hide itself through sophisticated counter intelligence and manipulation of the public and congress. Some of which the article delves into, which you should read if you haven't already. I'm not sure of the specifics but--don't we still "fail to have" detailed plans of US nuclear weapons? I mean there's plenty of "pro-am" speculation / obsessiveness but has any "countless Snowdens" leaked these? I mean, given plausible animosity towards US policy / threat of imminent worldwide destruction, "Just for the sake of informing humanity" you'd think there'd be these sorts of folks, too. But again, I think the security level of that nuclear info is simply too high. Which is sort of the point. I don't know why people are doubtful that a country that could: create nuclear weapons and a functioning liberal democratic economy would somehow be so incompetent as to have no idea to protect its secrets. It's said that the "UFO issue" is classified even higher than nuclear secrets. So that explains it. Unless it's uncomfortable for you to believe for some reason...which makes sense too. My view is the whole "government secrecy vs disclosure obsession" is really just another psyop: people become "dependent on government authority" to "tell them the truth" about the world, a dynamic that only increases government power in that dynamic, likely artificed by the government itself. While concealing whatever embarrassing reality is there. There's plenty of evidence that you can see if you go looking, or you can explain away, the choice is yours. But does it really matter? I mean if you don't have concrete proof either way, who cares, right? At some point when you're saying that millions of people who have claimed to have seen UFOs or been abducted, are actually the crazy ones, but you know what really happened in their lives, then you start to look like the psychotic...so either way you go it's a fine line. I think people are realizing that now...things are changing, but...it all still seems manipulated to me. Oh yeah, and it's funny that historically the counterintelligence folks who were most involved in the "debunking" narratives, and the issuing elaborate reasonable-sounding justifications for public denials, were among those most in the know about the secrets, and had experienced them themselves! Professional liars to the extreme! Some of them redeem themselves in their old age...or is it just another psyop? :) No wonder they want endless secrecy and narrative control-freakery, the whole debacle is all so embarrassing, they're just covering their arses to ensure it never comes out while they're alive. Scared little men holding gems in a cave. You bring them out into the sunshine maybe we can all enjoy their beauty. :)