Upcoming Interview: Hybrid Humans: Scientific Evidence of Our 800,000-Year-Old Alien Legacy by Daniella Fenton and Bruce R. Fenton

I totally get your point, but I can't help but looking at this from a different perspective... I mean, we're living in a post disclosure world. the reality of UFOs has become the "official" narrative. this is a monumental shift. so, given that this is the"official"narrative what is the 60% mean?
Is it official or is it just TTSA narrative?

Multiple statements and written records now show that the approval required for “public release” never took place, and the claims by TTSA that the videos represent, “official evidence released by the US government,” remain unfounded.
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...al-phenomena-not-cleared-for-public-release/#
 
“The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena,” said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase “UAP” is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not “UFO,” Mr. Gradisher added, “The ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges.”
 
Okay, so the blackvault may not be the greatest source:

Today, the U.S. Navy released the dates of three officially acknowledged encounters with what they call “phenomena.” In multiple statements received exclusively by The Black Vault, the Navy excited those interested in UFOs by officially admitting that the videos referred to as the ”FLIR1,” “Gimbal” and “GoFast” were, in fact, “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” or UAPs. Now, the Navy has offered up brief, but additional details about the cases, some of which, were previously unknown.
https://www.theblackvault.com/docum...ally-acknowledged-encounters-with-phenomena/#
 
I totally get your point, but I can't help but looking at this from a different perspective... I mean, we're living in a post disclosure world. the reality of UFOs has become the "official" narrative. this is a monumental shift. so, given that this is the"official"narrative what is the 60% mean?
It is interesting that this has happened without Greer's demand for 'disclosure'. I don't think it is fair to say 'official'. That implies overtly sanctioned. What we have is a drip feed that has let the idea seep into cultural consciousness to the point of 60% acceptance thus far. So are you saying a 'post disclosure world' is one in which truth is disclosed or one in which the idea of disclosure no longer has any value.

There is clear evidence that 'disclosing' has been going on for ages - from ET and from government. The presumptive argument that a government should come clean and fess up has always been idiotically naive. The notion that it can't be 'official' until government says so is the equivalent of saying that you don't get to have a Jesus experience unless the Church gives it the thumbs up and declares Jesus real. That isn't how reality works.

The very idea that ET gives a fig for governments is constantly rendered idiotic by every direct contact. Do folk imagine that ET contacts individuals with the permission of government?

I have had direct contact with advanced entities. The idea that either of us seek permission from government to interact was never an issue. For me the very idea of 'disclosure' is an intemperate and naive one - unless it is specific. If governments are engaging with ET we cannot assume that their ET is the same as those engaging in direct contact.

Years ago I was told there were trader ETs. I have not much bothered with the idea but it does strike me that it might be useful to distinguish between traders and missionaries. I can imagine that a trader might find it sensible to contact government as controllers over resources. My unkind take on governments would dispose me to think that they could not be trusted in making moral deals with ET. I'd like to know what is going on, on a personal level. But that ain't about to happen. Disclosure on that level will happen when it is pragmatic to do so.

But in terms of 'missionary' ET [remember this is just my imagined term] 'disclosure' seems to be a constant rain - even if some of us are not conscious we know.
 
“The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena,” said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase “UAP” is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not “UFO,” Mr. Gradisher added, “The ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges.”
And we don't know if 'Object' is necessarily the right term. It is true that Phenomena might be 'objects', but we don't know they are. Think quantum here.
 
It is interesting that this has happened without Greer's demand for 'disclosure'. I don't think it is fair to say 'official'. That implies overtly sanctioned.
I don't think it does. imagine someone in charge of controlling this messaging... he rallies the team and says "ok this is the direction we want to take things... we want disclosure to happen."

so to me, in this imaginary scenario, disclosure becomes the official directive. all the shenanigans, misinformation, disinformation, media manipulation, fake and phony debates/retractions... all that's just theater that the team might decide is the best way to advance the official directive.
 
And we don't know if 'Object' is necessarily the right term. It is true that Phenomena might be 'objects', but we don't know they are. Think quantum here.
I think it's the right term. I mean, what are we to call these things that emerge out of consciousness into our time space reality. it seems to me that any lines we draw are going to be by definition very fuzzy.
 
I think it's the right term. I mean, what are we to call these things that emerge out of consciousness into our time space reality. it seems to me that any lines we draw are going to be by definition very fuzzy.
Yeah - like BMWs and iPhones etc - and all living things. But I meant the distinction between 'object' and 'event' and other ways of thinking about manifest expressions. I want to get away from our habituated notion of an 'object' as a thing apart.
 
“The Navy designates the objects contained in these videos as unidentified aerial phenomena,” said Joseph Gradisher, official spokesperson for the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Warfare. When asked why the phrase “UAP” is now utilized by the U.S. Navy, and not “UFO,” Mr. Gradisher added, “The ‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena’ terminology is used because it provides the basic descriptor for the sightings/observations of unauthorized/unidentified aircraft/objects that have been observed entering/operating in the airspace of various military-controlled training ranges.”
So I was reading another site and they highlighted the spokespersons division - "Naval Operations for Information Warfare" which casts a big shadow on this disclosure.

Other than having some film from the navy, does this "disclosure" really give us more information than previous reports of ufo incidents with military personnel?
 
Third is any real information being provided by intelligence agencies on this topic? Why was Carson Green even talking to Dolan? Just more misinformation and confusion?
Marketing. Dolan has a loyal fan base. TTSA is selling narratives (especially threat) to the public, secondarily, and Congress, primarily.
 
Just an update for everyone on my analysis of the most recent Pew/Princeton Research Poll conducted on Americans via land line and cell phone. As I sit here in the hotel bored out of my mind. This framework of intelligence derived from the erroneously/amateurishly reduced data conducted by Pew Research, can be found at my blog here: Latest Trends in Acceptance of UFO’s – Not Good News for Fake Skeptics

Summarizing These Results into Coherent Intelligence

Therefore, to summarize the Gallup Research Poll in terms of a single spectrum, a little bit of domain theory, some math and critical path deduction leads the honest researcher to the following conclusions about sentiment toward UFO’s on the part of the American public:


In the above gross summary, one will notice that fake skeptics and the religiously brain dead (who believe that Earth-mankind is the only intelligent life in the Universe) compose the largest component of those holding final conclusions (extraordinary claims made without a shred of evidence at all) – comprising 60% of the population. This is the irrational segment of the population: those who obsessively cling to a modus absens without any form of valid basis for such inference.


In other words, stupidity passed off as skepticism fell in at around 60% of the population.
This group was followed by the more rational ‘I do not know’ group at 7%.
Finally followed by both those who consider the subject to be real, and a fortiori those who have seen a UFO in their lifetime, at 33%.


However, if we remove those who in actuality refused to take the poll – but their numbers were mistakenly counted as having a modus absens UFO-related conclusion (the poll error called utile absentia) – in other words, exclude the brain dead 48% above, a whole new set of numbers come into light as follows:

As one can see above, a full 64% of the rational and thinking population regard the UFO subject as having validity. A mere 23% of the adult rational population regard the UFO subject to be comprehensively delusion, man made or natural phenomena. Less than a quarter of the population, assumes that ‘skepticism’ affords them permission to hide their heads in the sand.

This is great news for UFO researching skeptics, bad news for fake skeptics.
 
Last edited:
This is great news for UFO researching skeptics, bad news for fake skeptics.
You have to wonder why anyone gives a damn about uninformed or ill-informed POVs. The answer to the question "Do UFOs exist?" is either "Yes" or "I don't know". No other answer has meaning or value - other to indicate stupidity or arrogant stupidity. I struggle to imagine what kind of reasoning would lead a person to say they do not exist. I get plain denial. But it would be more entertaining to ask : "Do you deny UFOs are real?"

Its the same with atheism. You either know the divine is real or you don't know. You can't know the divine is not real. An atheist can also be a deist, and not merely one who rejects theism.

It is interesting to see that the acceptance rate of UFOs has developed - arising from having seen one, having been 'abducted' or having the flexibility of mind to dare to go there. It would be entertaining to know how that 'brain dead' 48% breaks down into materialists and religious folk [Christians mostly].

I get that it is useful in a poll to ask whether a believes that UFOs exist - but surely the only useful question is "Do you know UFOs exist?" Of course whether folk think they exist may be useful in terms of cultural influences - if the intent is solely to test general notions.

Ah, for imaginative polling!
 
You have to wonder why anyone gives a damn about uninformed or ill-informed POVs. The answer to the question "Do UFOs exist?" is either "Yes" or "I don't know". No other answer has meaning or value - other to indicate stupidity or arrogant stupidity. I struggle to imagine what kind of reasoning would lead a person to say they do not exist. I get plain denial. But it would be more entertaining to ask : "Do you deny UFOs are real?"

Its the same with atheism. You either know the divine is real or you don't know. You can't know the divine is not real. An atheist can also be a deist, and not merely one who rejects theism.

It is interesting to see that the acceptance rate of UFOs has developed - arising from having seen one, having been 'abducted' or having the flexibility of mind to dare to go there. It would be entertaining to know how that 'brain dead' 48% breaks down into materialists and religious folk [Christians mostly].

I get that it is useful in a poll to ask whether a believes that UFOs exist - but surely the only useful question is "Do you know UFOs exist?" Of course whether folk think they exist may be useful in terms of cultural influences - if the intent is solely to test general notions.

Ah, for imaginative polling!
Well put and dead on balls accurate. (As usual)

If I ran a poll asking the question 'Do you agree with the statement: 'Michael Patterson is a good man?' And I surveyed 100 persons... the following results were obtained.​
Michael Patterson is a good man - 24​
Michael Patterson is not a good man - 3​
I do not know - 14​
Michael Patterson is not someone with whom I am familiar - 59​
Then I summarized the results thusly​
Those who agree with statement: 'Michael Patterson is a good man' - 24 %​
Those who disagree with statement: 'Michael Patterson is a good man' - 62 %
What is wrong with you man? :)
This is called utile absentia fallacy - the use of absenses of response as negatives in response in data. This trick of pseudoscience is what was used to declare Vaccines 'safe'. It is a way of prevaricating for your audience in polling and statistical inductive study. It is a key sign of agency, desire to deceive or simpleton incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Just an update for everyone on my analysis of the most recent Pew/Princeton Research Poll conducted on Americans via land line and cell phone. As I sit here in the hotel bored out of my mind. This framework of intelligence derived from the erroneously/amateurishly reduced data conducted by Pew Research, can be found at my blog here: Latest Trends in Acceptance of UFO’s – Not Good News for Fake Skeptics

Summarizing These Results into Coherent Intelligence

Therefore, to summarize the Gallup Research Poll in terms of a single spectrum, a little bit of domain theory, some math and critical path deduction leads the honest researcher to the following conclusions about sentiment toward UFO’s on the part of the American public:


In the above gross summary, one will notice that fake skeptics and the religiously brain dead (who believe that Earth-mankind is the only intelligent life in the Universe) compose the largest component of those holding final conclusions (extraordinary claims made without a shred of evidence at all) – comprising 60% of the population. This is the irrational segment of the population: those who obsessively cling to a modus absens without any form of valid basis for such inference.


In other words, stupidity passed off as skepticism fell in at around 60% of the population.
This group was followed by the more rational ‘I do not know’ group at 7%.
Finally followed by both those who consider the subject to be real, and a fortiori those who have seen a UFO in their lifetime, at 33%.


However, if we remove those who in actuality refused to take the poll – but their numbers were mistakenly counted as having a modus absens UFO-related conclusion (the poll error called utile absentia) – in other words, exclude the brain dead 48% above, a whole new set of numbers come into light as follows:

As one can see above, a full 64% of the rational and thinking population regard the UFO subject as having validity. A mere 23% of the adult rational population regard the UFO subject to be comprehensively delusion, man made or natural phenomena. Less than a quarter of the population, assumes that ‘skepticism’ affords them permission to hide their heads in the sand.

This is great news for UFO researching skeptics, bad news for fake skeptics.
this is great analysis so thanks.

I'm still hung up on the question of who is shaping this opinion making:
1569078515760.png
 
Top