Rich Giordano, UFO Hoaxes And/Or Ops |550|

Full disclosure I must admit I come in with a huge bias. I'm real salty about Pasulka. I can't disagree with your retort, however,
I think I meant my criticism along the lines of: "Here's the approved/complete-non-conspiratorial dogma for each of the following../"
Pasulka screams 100%-handler-approved to me. And my whiney ass would be more than happy to be proven otherwise and jump in both feet to her narrative, but she sounds a Steven Spielberg UFO movie character. I think Diana Pasulka minus whatever is her government handling would sound like Heather Heying. And i think if Heather Heying ever sold out to a government agency, she would immediately start sounding like Diana Pasulka.
IDK I listen to her here
https://getpodcast.com/podcast/that-ufo-podcast/205-diana-w-pasulka_9d866c8d7d
and had a very diff takeaway... more along the lines of " here's someone who may be telling the truth."

Do they talk about lou elizondo? he's kind of a litmus test character for me in this whole thing. I got the impression that diana is not a elizondo fan... but I don't know that for sure. if she is that would score major points for me :)
 
IDK I listen to her here
https://getpodcast.com/podcast/that-ufo-podcast/205-diana-w-pasulka_9d866c8d7d
and had a very diff takeaway... more along the lines of " here's someone who may be telling the truth."

Do they talk about lou elizondo? he's kind of a litmus test character for me in this whole thing. I got the impression that diana is not a elizondo fan... but I don't know that for sure. if she is that would score major points for me :)
After reading your response I was like "ok fine, if Alex isn't suspicious of it I should at least give it a go" (I love Curts podcasts style, but skipped em for a while now, probably since Chris Langdan which was awesome), and i circled back to the notes to see if I should skip forward a bit.... and did.
well I landed "01:20:05 Near Death Experiences, UFOs, and Dean Radin".. And sure enough like 20 seconds in they brought up Elizondo.. and so far it's interesting. So, I'll definitely listen to the remainder now, just wanted to respond since there was a cool little synchronicity there.
 
Haven't commented here in quite some time but the UFO subject is something that has captured my attention for years so...

The question: "Is what we're witnessing a psyop?"

Truthfully I am uncertain but a couple of things that have bugged me about Lou Elizondo are:
  • His apparent inability to understand why people that have had a long-term interest in UFOs are suspicious of the motives of both himself and others regarding their involvement in current events. I mean, why wouldn't we be? For me a failure to grasp this is indicative of a level of naivete on Lou's part that would seem to suggest either a large degree of ignorance about the subject's history or an inability to question what he is being told by people that he sees as leading his team. I don't think either of these is a good thing.

  • The other thing is a comment he made during his second appearance on Curt Jaimungal's T.O.E. where he said,
    "Truth and freedom and stuff...they'll never evolve to deserve it. And then I gotta call myself off the ledge and say, 'Ok. Actually, ya know what? They do."
    On the one hand this is a laudable remark because he's recognizing a way of thinking he considers negative but that's not what bothered me. What bothered me was his use of 'they' and the potential psychological implications for how Lou sees people. If there's a 'they' then they're not 'us' and Lou appears to consider himself more "evolved" and deserving of "truth and freedom and stuff".
Of course I'm bringing my own biases into this but just wanted to add my two cents.
 
hi David... thx for the post:

The question: "Is what we're witnessing a psyop?"

Truthfully I am uncertain but a couple of things that have bugged me about Lou Elizondo are:
  • His apparent inability to understand why people that have had a long-term interest in UFOs are suspicious of the motives of both himself and others regarding their involvement in current events. I mean, why wouldn't we be? For me a failure to grasp this is indicative of a level of naivete on Lou's part that would seem to suggest either a large degree of ignorance about the subject's history or an inability to question what he is being told by people that he sees as leading his team. I don't think either of these is a good thing.
or, he's really, really good at his job... i.e. counter-intel/disinformation agent... richard doty 2.0
 
Alex, I have to say, I gave Giordano a chance because you had him on your show, but he didn't really impress me. Now that I've seen him refer to a woman podcaster as "two tits and a nice head of hair", I can't stomach the guy. I can totally understand why he lost his show on Blog Talk Radio.

If he wants to criticize the actual content of her work, then he can do that without attacking her for having breasts.


 
Here you are again, making some random statement with no evidence to back it up.
Just found it interesting that you found Giordano's comments so offensive as to personally censor him yet you spent years listening, linking and supporting Trump who's Access Hollywood interview audio seem objectively at least as offensive. (I'm assuming many might say more offensive.)
 
Just found it interesting that you found Giordano's comments so offensive as to personally censor him yet you spent years listening, linking and supporting Trump who's Access Hollywood interview audio seem objectively at least as offensive. (I'm assuming many might say more offensive.)

I've never seen Trump attack a colleague for being a woman, or blame his failures in life on his opponent sleeping with someone in authority. I'm not familiar with the interview you are referring to, but I suspect if it was that bad, you would have given a link.

BTW, I don't agree with everything Trump says or does. He was the lesser of two evils in the last US election.

What Giordana did was engage in an Ad Hom attack on someone he disagreed with rather than making a logical argument against the content of her work. I've always criticized the use of logical fallacies as a substitute for making a reasonable critique.
 
I'm not familiar with the interview you are referring to, but I suspect if it was that bad, you would have given a link.
Sure you are. The entire western world was talking about it for a few weeks when it surfaced. Just google "trump grab 'em by" and see what comes up.
 
Back
Top