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.
 
Top