3 ms·

It’s 99% legitimate counterintelligence programs propelled by con-men and neo-religions. The US Government has known since at least 1976 that foreign spies (the

It’s 99% legitimate counterintelligence programs propelled by con-men and neo-religions. The US Government has known since at least 1976 that foreign spies (then Soviets) viewed UFO believers as mentally weak and thus targeted them to exfiltrate classified information. There are classified operations to test potential targets. And open intelligence networks to organize and connect disparate groups. Different parts of the government benefit in various ways. It will never be explained because the government can’t stop its employees from believing in supernatural ideas. If there is an illegal disinformation program or psyop, it is unconnected to the government and conducted over multi-decades. It will be extremely hard to prove until it becomes operational (ie in a hot war with China). In the meantime, the og UFO promoters are aging and they have created a new religion to explain the mysteries of life and death. These are the same people behind Lue Elizondo and David Grusch.

integricho 3y ago
I think skepticism can go to the same kinds of extremes as believing. While a significant percentage of reports is surely a mixture of crackpots / people with unknown agendas, I find it hard to discard just about everything on one of these basis.
- rout39574 3y ago
  No, skepticism should be your default stance w.r.t. extraordinary claims. That many people are heedless, shallow of thought, and frightened of ignorance in similar patterns should not be taken as evidence that _some_ of their flights of fancy are fact.
  - integricho 3y ago
    There is a difference between healthy skepticism and blind, fanatic skepticism. The latter is not far from the dark ages when the church was burning people for claiming the earth is not flat or not the center of the universe, only in a more civilized environment, but still anything outside the currently accepted norm is disregarded as impossible and the people with such claims are ridiculed, just as it is happening with me now, and not even because of claiming something, just giving it the benefit of the doubt. This is not how scientific progress is made. Given the amount of evidence and witnesses, it at least deserves to be studied, not just coldly dismissed.
    - beefok 3y ago
      Sort of off topic, but I got stung by the "AKSHUALLY" bug. I just wanted to say that the term, "fanatic skepticism", isn't a possible outcome. Definitionally, skepticism clearly means you wouldn't be fanatic of anything. In reality this is cognitive dissonance, not skepticism. Anyway, personally, I think this is a topic that needs serious skeptical focus. I don't just want immediate knee-jerk reactionary opinions on what people saw -- I want honesty as new information is gained. New thoughts on what you saw? Give those updates. I hope that we're not alone in the universe and, honestly, I think it would probably impact me more if we were alone in such a vast *thing*.
      - integricho 3y ago
        Yes, cognitive dissonance might be the correct description of this, thanks! still, the definition of it holds for this case. I also don't want to rely on speculation / jumping to conclusions, but just the same, don't want it entirely dismissed as some outrageous "cannot happen" thing. Serious research needs to be done.
- HybridCurve 3y ago
  It's entirely possible the government exposes individuals with SCI type clearance to disinformation or fabrications to convince them they are real, and then watches them to see if they can keep it a secret. This would be a ideal way to conduct audits within groups exposed to leading technology. Then, to be fair, many of these people are conveying their observations truthfully but were just encouraged to draw to wrong conclusions from the experience.
  - integricho 3y ago
    sure, that's entirely possible, and even that all the recently released information is just that. but again, until this is proven, it's unfair to dismiss everything with such an explanation. it deserves a thorough investigation and study.
marktangotango 3y ago
Jeremy Corbin and George Knapp were on Rogan recently talking about Grusch and what was said seemed like some really poor decision making on Grusch part, not least of which was Grusch decision talking to those guys. In that way, what you say is believable. BUT it does not explain the credible eye witness and sensor data around sightings such as tic tac and others. So, in my view the reality must be somewhere in between. Whether that's extraterrestrial or not, hanlons razor suggest not.

integricho 3y ago

I think skepticism can go to the same kinds of extremes as believing. While a significant percentage of reports is surely a mixture of crackpots / people with unknown agendas, I find it hard to discard just about everything on one of these basis.

rout39574 3y ago
No, skepticism should be your default stance w.r.t. extraordinary claims. That many people are heedless, shallow of thought, and frightened of ignorance in similar patterns should not be taken as evidence that _some_ of their flights of fancy are fact.
- integricho 3y ago
  There is a difference between healthy skepticism and blind, fanatic skepticism. The latter is not far from the dark ages when the church was burning people for claiming the earth is not flat or not the center of the universe, only in a more civilized environment, but still anything outside the currently accepted norm is disregarded as impossible and the people with such claims are ridiculed, just as it is happening with me now, and not even because of claiming something, just giving it the benefit of the doubt. This is not how scientific progress is made. Given the amount of evidence and witnesses, it at least deserves to be studied, not just coldly dismissed.
  - beefok 3y ago
    Sort of off topic, but I got stung by the "AKSHUALLY" bug. I just wanted to say that the term, "fanatic skepticism", isn't a possible outcome. Definitionally, skepticism clearly means you wouldn't be fanatic of anything. In reality this is cognitive dissonance, not skepticism. Anyway, personally, I think this is a topic that needs serious skeptical focus. I don't just want immediate knee-jerk reactionary opinions on what people saw -- I want honesty as new information is gained. New thoughts on what you saw? Give those updates. I hope that we're not alone in the universe and, honestly, I think it would probably impact me more if we were alone in such a vast *thing*.
    - integricho 3y ago
      Yes, cognitive dissonance might be the correct description of this, thanks! still, the definition of it holds for this case. I also don't want to rely on speculation / jumping to conclusions, but just the same, don't want it entirely dismissed as some outrageous "cannot happen" thing. Serious research needs to be done.
HybridCurve 3y ago
It's entirely possible the government exposes individuals with SCI type clearance to disinformation or fabrications to convince them they are real, and then watches them to see if they can keep it a secret. This would be a ideal way to conduct audits within groups exposed to leading technology. Then, to be fair, many of these people are conveying their observations truthfully but were just encouraged to draw to wrong conclusions from the experience.
- integricho 3y ago
  sure, that's entirely possible, and even that all the recently released information is just that. but again, until this is proven, it's unfair to dismiss everything with such an explanation. it deserves a thorough investigation and study.

marktangotango 3y ago

Jeremy Corbin and George Knapp were on Rogan recently talking about Grusch and what was said seemed like some really poor decision making on Grusch part, not least of which was Grusch decision talking to those guys. In that way, what you say is believable. BUT it does not explain the credible eye witness and sensor data around sightings such as tic tac and others. So, in my view the reality must be somewhere in between. Whether that's extraterrestrial or not, hanlons razor suggest not.