Statistically, however, there needs to be a convincing psychiatric study that people with no history of mental illness and "good moral standing" in the community can have a single hallucinatory event, often with multiple witnesses and specific details common across different sightings, to discount these observers as crazy, like so many here do. What is the mechanism? Our society is mostly based on witness testimony and trust, at the end of the day (we are coming back full circle with the advent of deepfakes).
I'm not talking about seeing a dot of light moving strangely in the distance or something seen for only two seconds. Skeptical people rightly point out that those typically have a prosaic explanation, and often not a very exceptional one.
I'm referring to the "close encounters" in which the witness(es) couldn't possibly mistake the giant black triangle silent floating 50 feet over a car with dozens of witnesses. Or the ranchers who check on the strongest bull in their herd one day, and the next find it precisely mutilated about a field, along with a dozen others, with no blood to be found. Or the entire schools full of children reporting metal objects landing with beings coming out to communicate with them telepathically.
I do not doubt that some of them are crazy, but all of them? With what mental illness?
> people with no history of mental illness and "good moral standing" in the community can have a single hallucinatory event, often with multiple witnesses and specific details common across different sightings
... yes, they can.
It's not a mental illness, it's "pareidolia" or something similar. The "face on mars" is a great example. The brain is a pattern-recognition neural net. It's really good at finding patterns. So good that it finds patterns which aren't there. Occasionally they can be really strong.
Spookily, while typing this post, I saw a bright oval dot moving at high speed across my peripheral vision, outside the window. Just before it disappeared from view my bleary eyes resolved it as a seagull, being under-lit by the dawn light against houses and trees that are still in shadow.
(I think we'd do well to recognize that there's no sharp boundary between "sane" and "mentally ill" either, and that "mentally ill" should not be used to automatically discount people! Schizophrenia is known to produce hallucinations as a common symptom, but not depression or bipolar, while migrane headaches can produce flashing lights in the field of vision but are not usually classified as a mental illness)
If you have 10 people who don't smoke, exercise, eat healthy etc.. they're unlikely to get cancer. If you have 10 million, a lot of them will.
Same for random hallucinations. One in ten people? Not likely. One in ten million? Practically certain.
I've never seen anything myself, but anecdotally, a group of sane family members did (a close encounter, at that) circa 1970, long before the secret military jet angle would have any credibility. Apparently more than half of people can share a similar personal or family anecdote.
So unless you have an answer to this alleged isolated hallucinatory mental illness that lacks any scientific rigor, can you really refute thousands of witnesses or the validity of their other forms of evidence, such as photos and videos?
Whenever an actual event occurs (meteor, explosion, and so on) we have video footage from multiple angles uploaded almost immediately. If UFO activity was a frequent occurrence happening to thousands of people, it would be truly remarkable if it was never captured by multiple cameras somehow.
As for dismissing reports: There are hundreds of millions of people in the US alone. If you go searching for claims, you can find thousands of people who will make similar mistaken or untrue claims about anything. At scale, the amount of misperception and misremembering is massive.
There are a few problematic assumptions in this line of thinking: you assume the event is as dramatic as a meteor or explosion, occurs in a highly populated area, and involves no discretion on the part of the object. This is typically not the case, although you could argue that people recalling the same specific details in smaller witness groups, but across many different incidents, could constitute the same idea. Even with this in mind, I can think of a few truly mass sightings.
And you should read these if you are interested in an account where either the Navy fabricated this weird hoax, fake data and got a squadron of pilots to lie about it very convincingly, or the whole event is real. Multiple radar, multiple pilot visuals, multiple angles.
All of which occured before the advent of ubiquitous hand-held cameras, security camera footage, and dash-cams. Can't help but feel had these been captured we'd have found simple explanations for each, and people's memories of them would be less malleable.
Re the naval sightings, the article you've linked to says "experts emphasize that earthly explanations can generally be found for such incidents".
Most interestingly, the captioned video:
"That footage, published previously but with little context, shows an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind. A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released."
A kernel of truth + some imagination.
(I don't think I actually believe aliens are here and walking amongst us, but I'm not sure I can see a lack of evidence as being evidence of them not being here either).
As to the Navy stuff Occam's razor would say that these are edge cases where the instruments fail. Having viewed these videos this seems like a reasonable explanation. Sure, it could be aliens, but sensors being wrong is an extremely common occurrence so it is a much simpler answer. Edge cases where sensors fail are also cases where human sensors are likely to fail too (this should be unsurprising if you've studied a bit of computer vision). So
> either the Navy fabricated this weird hoax, fake data and got a squadron of pilots to lie about it very convincingly, or the whole event is real
Is a false dichotomy. Sure, those are two options, but a third option is that people simply don't know what they saw but it was a natural phenomena. Ignoring that case isn't helpful to the discussion and more likely to convince people that you're a crackpot (I don't mean this in an offensive way, just trying to help you set up your argument better. I want you to have the strongest argument you can make because that's how we find answers).
My point about "something was there" still stands though. I've heard other debunking comments that simply dismiss it as a video issue, and that is what grinds my gears.
Forgive me if I was a bit defensive in the before comment, but I did not make the claim that nothing was there. I made the claim that there were better explanations. It is important that we try to characterize arguments individually and not group as "them". All that leads to is frustration and fighting. I'll say it takes two to tango but we should all work on not stoking the flames. I think this is a big lesson we as a society need to learn from recent events.
And if, hypothetically, there was an intelligence, and it was intentionally being discreet, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine they might be smart enough to go about their business while doing a decent job of avoiding the situation that would provide incontrovertible proof. While that seems like a cop out, so is claiming the Nimitz incident could be explained by some mysterious natural phenomena, without actually offering an explanation. If you actually put in the effort to consume all the information available on just that specific incident, it leaves little room for alternatives between the two options.
As was posted in another comment I'm going to post this video. And don't dare claim someone hasn't looked up the links and articles just because they don't agree with you. Do it if they demonstrate that they didn't (there's a big difference and the former is going to piss someone off and is against HN's good faith rules).
I'm referring to the Nimitz incident. I don't mean to offend you, but I can say confidently there is information you have yet to consume on that incident. Taken alone and with no context, the IR video isn't convincing proof of anything, and West points that out, while ignoring that there is other information. But there is more verified info from the original NYT piece that makes this case special . How do you explain the fact that passive radar from the ship was tracking this object on and off for two weeks before they finally deployed a squadron to investigate it? How do you explain the fascinating pilot testimony (they had multiple angles, by the way) of the white round object flying around erratically, then mirroring their descent, then shooting off into the sky ? Or the fact that their primary radars were being jammed (technically an act of war)?
Any of these pieces of information taken alone could be inconclusively explained away, but as you compound them, forcing a "normal" explanation looks more and more like the Catholic church telling Galileo that the cosmos orbit around the Earth.
But if a person doesn't want to see or believe, it's almost like a magical shield goes over their eyes - they simply won't see it, or won't be able to acknowledge it.
This one is a great example: The video linked here has been thoroughly explained to be very dull, boring things that were misinterpreted by the people filming them.
For instance, the second video, with the supposed fast-moving object over water, is very clearly just a regular bird, plus parallax effects from filming from a moving plane.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/go-fast-footage-from-tom-de... for more.
Go join the MUFON Facebook group and look back the past few weeks at the folks discussing this blue thing off the coast of Hawaii. . I had multiple people get into arguments with me on the MUFON group about it's origins. I believe it was random space junk, immediately a man began insisting it was an "ion propulsion" alien ship crashing after it had been shot, kept insisting that only that bluish glow could be create by an ET exotic technology star drive, I quickly pointed out more than a dozen materials that create a blue flame when they burn at which point he kept arguing with me and got quite hostile insisting it's a downed alien craft. I think one even claimed they communicated with the 'crew of the ship'.
People... believe what they want to.
Are you asking for known-fictions or claimed-genuine-UFOs?
Because for the former, the average Avengers film.
I disagree, many forms of “simple” evidence would sway most people’s opinions and almost everyone would be persuaded by replicated clear detailed videos of crafts, attempted communication, or some alien artifact. Even a half eaten discarded alien candy bar would change the minds of almost any skeptic. Where is such evidence? After all these years, there are still no good pictures of an alien or its spaceship.
Look into crop circles, if this topic interests you. I think how deeply you look into it will be a reflection of your beliefs - and more than that, of what you want to believe! (Same for each of us, generally speaking!)
Look into Richard Dolan's youtube presentations.
Now I just clued you into two rabbit holes- how deep will you go? See, your beliefs will determine that. Your desires to believe or not believe will determine how much you look.
I was interested, and wanted to believe, so I read 3000+ pages of Dolan's writings and watched 10+ hours of YouTube documentaries. Now I know practically "everything" (as far as I care to) about these topics. But it's because I wanted to know, I wanted to believe.
And how is the written or verbal testimony of hundreds of thousands of witnesses over time not counted as "evidence"?
Changing the minds of skeptics is impossible. People believe what they want to believe, in my opinion.
>Even a half eaten discarded alien candy bar would change the minds of almost any skeptic.
I don't think you've thought this one through fully. So you have this candy bar - what does it look like? Where will you have it analyzed? When you get the analysis back, who are you going to show? People will still be easily able to discount anything short of a direct landing of alien craft or a cyber-weapon that demonstrably altered reality. I'm not even skeptic and I can discount your candy bar in my mind in half a second - it just looks like a normal candy bar. Or just looks like a shiny candy bar. Or maybe its a prank made up by an elaborate joker. etc. etc. etc.
That's true if you ignore the videos that have been recently declassified and released by the US government and the assertions of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who insists that the government has numerous photos and videos and is hiding them from the public.
Then you have the eyewitness testimony of numerous military officials who were in charge of our nuclear weapons arsenal. Are all of these guys (the ones who our government trusts to maintain and operate out most sensitive and powerful weapons) all lying and/or delusional?
That event was immediately noticeable and happened in an area where the vast majority of vehicles have dash cams due to insurance fraud.
Not a lot of people stare at the sky though looking for flying objects that they cannot identify. Most cameras aren't pointed in a direction to capture much (if any) of the sky either. Also, go outside next time the moon is out, get your phone out and take a photo or video of it... looks like a tiny blob of light doesn't it, far worse than what your naked eye sees.
In December I was curious about MUFON so joined, paid to take the test to become a field investigator as I was curious what people are reporting (largely commercial aircraft I suspect after having worked at an airport for 15 years and seeing aircraft appear to do wonky stuff due to distance/speed/absurdly bright landing lights), and joined the MUFON facebook group.
On the Facebook group, when you sift through the hot chaff of people claiming they've been telepathically communicating with umpteen races of aliens that "their sources" given them "intel" about, you get a lot of photos and videos of what are almost certainly commercial aircraft. In once instance in the past few weeks someone posted a photo of an "alien ship" that was blatantly a Mylar balloon in the shape of a sun with wavy rays of Mylar around the edge of the balloon.
Then factor in things like stars, planets, satellites, toy and commercial drones, Chinese lanterns, balloons, space debris reentering the atmosphere, military aircraft refueling, etc and you quickly realize that probably 99.999999999999999999999999% of Unidentified Flying Objects are man made and natural phenomenon, often extremely boring stuff.
Recently there was some siting off of Hawaii of some blue orb. I had multiple people get into arguments with me on the MUFON group about it's origins. I believe it was random space junk, immediately a man began insisting it was an "ion propulsion" alien ship crashing after it had been shot, kept insisting that only that bluish glow could be create by an ET exotic technology star drive, I quickly pointed out more than a dozen materials that create a blue flame when they burn at which point he kept arguing with me and got quite hostile insisting it's a downed alien craft.
The past 2-3 days that group has had people sharing a recent article about Juno detecting an FM radio signal from one of Jupiter's moons. Almost everyone on those posts is adamant it is an extraterrestrial signal that NASA is trying to cover up. Virtually none of them are willing to even entertain the idea that this is 100% a natural phenomenon that science can fully explain.
Even if all of the cameras we have deployed around the planet were capable of getting high resolution, stable, quality images of the bulk of Unidentified Flying Objects, some people would simply claim a conspiracy when you showed they were very much not little green men in flying saucers.
Growing up in a very charismatic flavor of Christianity I thought I 'experienced' a lot of phenomenon that I now look back on with contempt. People preach, seek out, and legit believe (despite no hard evidence) in supernatural healing, limbs regrowing, divine languages, divine laughter/joy, spontaneous creation of jewels, etc.
IME the claims that become most popular are the ones impossible to falsify. So testimony is usually all that's left.
I firsthand experienced a charismatic Christian telling me a story about how one time his car wouldn't start, and then some stranger appeared to help him get it started again, and then once the car was running the stranger was gone – totally believable, everyday occurrence, except for my interlocutor's insistence that the stranger wasn't a human being, but actually an angel sent by God appearing in human form.
I wonder what that random stranger would think if he knew he's been turned into an angel in the mind of the person he helped.
More seriously though, people who are that far into religion will see 'the hand of god' in just about every normal phenomenon, my paternal grandmother was one of those and she deeply believed all these things to be true, even when there were perfectly ordinary explanations for them. That never stopped us from getting along just fine, but I wouldn't press her on such items because her world was fragile enough as it was.
Religion is comfort food for the mind, and if someone needs their 'angels in human form' then maybe we should just let them.
These beliefs project a very basic, easily understood view of reality - discount vast amounts of difficult or inconvenient experiential data which has been with mankind since the beginning (ETs, visions, dreams, ghosts, the paranormal, faith healing, synchronicities, etc.) - and papers over a variety of huge and fundamental questions (origins, purpose, life after death, etc) with a very solid, tangible, and pat answer.
People who are deep into materialism will also see materialism everywhere, so the effect also happens that you mentioned with your grandmother.
And, materialism has no more physical evidence than its competitors do. Whatever observations materialists claim as "evidence" for materialism, advocates of competing theories will say that those observations are just as compatible with their own theory as with materialism. If competing theories can explain these observations just as well as materialism can, then those observations turn out not to be evidence for materialism at all.
Not sure if that applies to this highly derided topic.
I do agree the mass hysteria angle has a place in the digestion of all these accounts, but what is the mechanism? Is it reproducible? Is it only applicable to panic situations? What about when you have tangible forms of evidence to follow the account (such as air-to-ground and infrared radar )? Incidentally, that's the account that was convincing enough to get me interested enough in this subject to study it with an open mind.
To the best of my understanding (do your own research), he hypothesized that many of these stories were true, even if the explanations were not really aliens. They were spiritual and cultural phenomena that people really experienced.
> entire schools full of children reporting metal objects landing with beings coming out to communicate with them telepathically
You're referring to the 1994 incident in Zimbabwe, which Mack famously studied. It's certainly an interesting one!
I remember going through all the videos on the internet about that incident, and ultimately being unimpressed with the investigation. There were 60 kids at the school, Mack only interviewed a few. Why is that? I get the feeling they actually interviewed many more but cherry-picked stories to fit their narrative. There were also stories about UFO sightings in Zimbabwe in the days leading up to that event, I'm sure many of the kids had heard about it before they went to recess that day?
I've never read any of his actual long-form publications on that incident though (don't even know if there are any), so perhaps I missed something.
Back to your basic question: "how could all these people be crazy?" I don't think anyone knows, and I'm not sure many people are studying it. But even a super smart Harvard professor couldn't make a strong case one way or the other, even after studying a school full of children directly after one of the most compelling UFO sightings in history. So it's probably best to move on, assume it wasn't aliens, and wait for someone to capture an alien craft clearly on video. Personally I use it as a reason to upgrade my iPhone and get those sweet new cameras ;)
In the West, such things are horror stories. Another friend kind of jokingly said it might be „due to radiation, which affects the crazy energies of nature“ in the west. That‘s why we don‘t have these sightings.
I know, no scientific contribution, but finally the possibility to share this story in a proper forum.
Because what makes me think: my friend is smart, not crazy and told it very convincingly.
At least in such a way that I believe that he has seen it.
That doesn't make it real, I know, but kind of scary for a European.
In corners of South America without infrastructure I have also experienced very strange situations and felt the darkest energies, had the weirdest encounters and strangest hallucinations...
Anyways, i am glad that for me, these are just stories. I don‘t want to be the guy that has one of those encounters and then has to either forget about it or fight for his credibility.
It is interesting to imagine how it might be that more observation might make state more finite, and make possibilities that might be contraindicated by a non-local observer impossible to observe locally, tangentially related to the way that when something becomes more isolated in distance or time the less certainty we can attach to details of observation.
It might be that things can be locally observed that are not globally tenable as long as the interactions between the light cone of the effects of the local observer and the contraindicating observer do not overlap in such a way that the inconsistancy would contraindicate the act of observation.
Probably irrelevant, but it is interesting to note that the rituals of many forms of "magic" "purification" can be characterized as attempting to create precisely this kind of causality barrier between the practicioner and the outside world.
It is rediculous but interesting to ponder how with so many less observers and so much less communication/interaction between distant observers, perhaps reality was once more flexible.
But if people do indeed notice such a glitch in reality, maybe there is a way to exploit it? How can it be determined whether something is observed?
If I had to guess most of these went down because the child or relative of someone powerful, authoritative, and very disconnected from reality (gullible), did some bullshit the powerful person couldn't reason about. Literally, leaving their brain unable to compute reality instead choosing (and very likely believing) "bat shit" as the reason... Depending on how powerful the person who just skipped-a-beat of reality; the narrative might never be questioned. cough trump cough
I mean; like with UFOs, most of the imagery people use to describe are _known_ to them before the event. They're related to what the person knows and is capable of imagining.
With all that said, I'm not trying to explain them all as bullshit or nonsense; but, the list without the bullshit is a lot smaller. I do think it's a bit unfortunate though as I'd love to speculate and wonder about something besides the trite psuedo-hallucinations all these stories contain.
My grandfather told stories of things he saw flying for Eastern Airlines and later American Airlines. My uncles who flew F-16s all saw strange things too.
Ask any aviator that’s been flying heavy for 10+ years what strange things they have seen and they’ll have some stories.
I’m glad we, as a people, are talking about it, without jumping to conclusions about what these objects are.
1) when my son was 2, I woke up in the middle of the night and thought I heard something. I went to check his room. As I peered through the door I was 100% convinced I saw him walking in the room. But as I entered the room I realized that was not possible as he was several meters away from the position, a sleep. The carpet on the room was really colourful playmat. As I retraced my steps I realized the patterns on the carpet in the near darkness were close enough for my brain to interpret the visual signal as my son walking. In another circumstance I could have easily thought I saw a ghost (if I was so inclined).
2) This is even more weird. I give you the mating crows. I walked by some familiar trees planted next to an office building in bright daylight and noticed something black moving in one of them. I could not see immediately what it was until I realized it was two crows which appeared to be mating or fighting - and as I did not hear anything I guessed the latter. Being the curious naturalist I am I approached tree. Yep, crows. I tried get as close as I could - until I was right next to the tree and noticed the "crows" were actually a black plastic bag wriggling in the wind. This illusion was so convincing and powerful I've never been fooled so well by anything else.
So, what do I conclude? I'm 40, and in the past 20 years I've seen two times strange events that I could have easily intepreted as proof of supernatural activity if I was so inclined - ghosts and some weird magic transfiguration.
Based on this sampling, it's quite likely people have 'witnessed' all sorts of strange things their visual cortex has produced. I totally now believe people have actually seen ghosts - except it was all in their head and they weren't crazy - just their brain doing what it always does and missing the context a bit.
Also makes you think how reliable eye witness statements are in some contexts that have short span and potential for confusion.
We discount people who make extraordinary claims because their claims contradict our understanding of the world. But if some percent of eyewitness testimony is totally fake even when it is unbelievable, shouldn't we also discount testimony at an even greater rate when it doesn't contradict our worldview? Or are we to believe that this particular tendency to see things that didn't happen is limited to aliens and not run of the mill murders?
Years ago he released a video on the Mandela effect, and then about a year ago he recreated the video, scene for scene, with subtle (and not so subtle) differences, and then deleted the original. A few people had mirrored the original, so it's possibly still findable.
That's currently my best example of an entertainer playing the long game for a punchline!
Cattle mutilations are real as well, and certainly not aliens. Probably some government agency doing tests or experiments, cults and natural predation.
As far as "entire schools full of children reporting metal objects landing with beings coming out to communicate with them telepathically," children do make things up and confabulate, and children do suffer peer pressure. Mass hysteria does exist and has been documented.
No one is saying that mental illness is responsible for every UFO case, but it is likely responsible for a lot of them. It's worth remembering, however, that human perception and memory are faulty and that a perfectly rational, clinically sane person can suffer hallucinations, misinterpret phenomena based on limited information, or have false memories.
Just look at the Ancient Aliens guy, if you take him at face value, everything is an alien, including piles of rocks on other rocks.
Then look at James Randi.
And it's 2020, everyone has a better camera in their pocket than at any time in history. Where's the evidence? The 'gimbal' video has been plausibly debunked.
UFOs as alien spacecraft do not exist. Sorry.
We don't live in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where it's full of 'teasers' that torment some random guy on a farm in the middle of nowhere having flown light-years to get here.
UFOs as mis-identified natural or man made phenomena do exist.
And crop circles I associate mostly with England.
Not crazy, necessarily, but lacking critical thinking skills. I have seen things in the sky that I didn't know for certain what they were. I did not make the leap from, "I don't know," to "alien spacecraft," however. Some people come up with the most bizarre explanations for really rather mundane things, and then convince themselves of the truth of it. If someone is already primed with the bizarre idea, they are more likely to see it, too.
Only if you can assume that everyone (without a mental illness) always knows and tells the literal truth. Which isn't the case, as has been proven over and over. Check witness studies and autobiographical memory.
Having watched it, I suddenly have little doubt that we as a species are very capable of generating lots of witness accounts for any fantastical event.
It remains to this day largely an American phenomenon, and the secretive and technological nature of the cold war cannot be ignored as a factor. Brainwashing a school that aliens arrived seems preferable to leaking information about critical and advanced (for its era) defense technology.
What better way of using cattle as bioindicators?
For one, most cases of especially strange cattle mutilation (I remember) were in helo range of Kirtland AFB.
For another, the mutilations were described as chirugically precice. Sometimes just a large part (and including it) around the rectum. Which of course would concentrate all the "input", because it has to go "through there".
And the blood, of course.
And the areas were in the downwind parts of nuclear testing.
So... not absolutely unreasonable, given the secrecy and ruthlessness of certain parts of government.
But not proven or provable in any way at the moment.
edit: you can look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders if you haven't heard of this before.
edit: and of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Air_Force_Base to get a feel why this one, out of all the bases
If some being, human or animal, gets killed and mutilations around the genitals or rectum occur, chances are high it's not some night-time military operation but sexually motivated.
BTW, in the USA it's mostly cattle, in Europe horses.
...sometimes i have the feeling that bits flip after i've typed and pressed send.
I dismiss all references to the quality of the witnesses. Such human factors are too muddy and debatable. Arguments about any one event, was that particular things real or not, wont ever answer the question. We must analyze UFO reports in an international context. The phenomena is very mush only reported in the western world. There is also a temporal association between UFO reports and contemporaneous Hollywood movies on the subject. A real phenomena, as in the XKCD above, should be country and culturally agnostic. Reports should ebb and flow with the number of potential witnesses, not the release dates of movies.
Dash cams, security cameras, and phone cameras all have targeted uses. They are "better cameras" for those uses. But they aren't better cameras for every use. As I was saying about the moon, some shots require more specialized equipment to get good detail. The number of people out with a DSLR and the right lens who knows how to properly take a shot of a flying object and is intently looking for flying objects has not really increased much.
"Koro is a culture-bound syndrome delusional disorder in which an individual has an overpowering belief that his or her sex organs are retracting and will disappear"
> In a typical case of running amok, an individual (often male), having shown no previous sign of anger or any inclination to violence, will acquire a weapon (traditionally a sword or dagger, but currently any of a variety of weapons) and in a sudden frenzy, will attempt to kill or seriously injure anyone he encounters and himself.
Culture-bound syndromes are fascinating.
Implying Americans are crazier seems odd. What would cause that? Higher rates of mental illness making their ancestors emigrate from their original countries? Is there any data on that? Western Diet causing mental illness? Too much empty space?
I'm not implying that (also, no need to imply such a thing, de facto knowledge at this point). I'm implying that the culture in US has a lot more UFOs in it, every major blockbuster alien movie has been produced in the US, as far as I know. Most if not all UFO sightings that gets reported around the world comes from the US. Flying experiments could contribute to that as well, which also go into the culture in the US of doing experimental aircrafts in order to achieve flight-superiority.
This seems like a sort of sampling bias as a consequence of America being really good at exporting its culture.
They manufactured a conspiracy about some omnipotent leaker of facts and called this fictional character Q.
UFO facts from government archives might make them declare war on the Pepe frog or some other bananas reaction.
So while most people don't believe this stuff, it's not exactly fringe either. That's maybe a hundred million people who believe aliens are coming to earth, while Heaven's Gate was 41 people. Using belief in UFOs as the basis for a religion has happened a few times, but it's very fringe.
The official narrative has always been that if the masses found out about ET visiting us they would lose their shit. I don't think much would change even if this is how they found out.
Its not like suddenly learning there are aliens means they don't have to go to work tomorrow.
The CIA claims they have now provided all the information on UAP they have, though there is no way to know that’s true.
“Research by The Black Vault will continue to see if there are additional documents still uncovered within the CIA’s holdings,” Greenwald promised in a statement on his website.
The release comes months before the Pentagon was due to brief Congress on all they know about UAP — a date dictated in the most recent COVID-19 relief bill, of all places, which passed in late December.
The demands for alien intel became so many that the CIA eventually compiled it onto a CD-ROM, obtained by Greenwald and uploaded to the Black Vault, divvied into dozens of downloadable .PDFs.
Dr. Greer's assessment is that this is a continuation of the slow but steady narrative that UFOs and ETI are real but that they are a threat. The ETs are NOT the threat as Dr. Greer has continually stated. The threat is the military industrial complex juggernaut towards interplanetary war.
Please see his article : When Disclosure serves Secrecy.
From Dr. Greer's paper:
"Do not be deceived. You need to be awake to the darker scenarios which some would like to thrust upon the world. And you need to know that there are alternatives. If a ‘disclosure’ is unleashed on the world which is xenophobic, militaristic and terrifying, know that it comes from the spinmeisters of secrecy- regardless of how respectable the person or group may appear to be.
And remember: Part of this disclosure plan involves the use of UFO look-alike devices made by humans in an attack on Earth or military assets of Earth. This would be a well-orchestrated use of advanced human technologies to hoax an ET attack- all for the purpose of disclosing the truth with the desired military-oriented spin. In such a scenario, most of humanity will be deceived into believing the threat from space has arrived – and that we must fight it at all costs. This is nothing more than long-term social security for the military-industrial complex. There must be people who can expose this fraud.
Here is another idea: Why don’t ‘we the people’ unite and launch a disclosure ......... An honest one. One which leads to peace, not war. To a sustainable and beautiful world, free of pollution and brimming with abundance, of all types. One which reaches out into the unknown, instead of firing particle beam weapons into the darkness of space."
One retired Israeli government employee said something about a "galactic federation." Surreptitously making it plural makes it seem as if the entire UN security council was having secret meetings about it.
I'd really love to see the government release their real thoughts on the UAP subject - be it exotic technology from a foreign power, exotic technology from the US, or indeed extra terrestrial. However I feel we'll all be old and/or dead by the time that actually happens.
In one of the events 4 trained observers, at the same time, backed up by a one of the most advanced radar systems in the US Navy (at the time), and later on the same day by another 2 trained observers that captured one of the videos.
Basically this would need to be a collaboration from several Navy people all for a big joke/hoax, risking their reputation for the joke/hoax itself (since as far as it's public none of them gained any money from this).
Even if it was for social capital... they're US Navy pilots. It's not like they need this event to be perceived as exceptional humans in that field.
I'm waiting for magic to come back.
"TAKE 5 OF 8--POSSIBLE SCENARIOS FOR SUMMER KIDNAPPINGS OF
5 BARNAUL COEDS DETAILED, INCLUDING POSSIBILITY THEY WERE
ABDUCTED FOR SLAVERY, ORGAN TRANSPLANTATIDN SCHEMES, OTHER
Edit: this one seems like pretty random musings of a CIA agent in the USSR based on disapperances that happened there.
Probably just some serial killer? :/
alternatively we're just a zoological survey site
No wonder no alien race wants to establish contact with us.
The only explanation that to me is probable is those are US UFOs being tested/interacted on with unaware normal troops.
But then again, why? Why test them out near and airforce/navy exercises?
June 26, 1996 just 30 minutes past midnight - Lithuanian police spot a UFO "near the Lithuanian border": https://documents2.theblackvault.com/documents/cia/ufos/C055...
"Patrol officers Jaunius Pozera and Laimis Kraujalis placed the whole Vilnius police on the alert. Vehicle loads of soldiers from the Aras Rapid reaction force, sniffer dogs and police reinforcements immediately arrived on the scene of the emergency."
"At an altitude of 20-30 meters above the ground, they noticed a spherical object hanging and 'Pulsing,' alternately shrinking and expanding. At the same time, they heard what they described as 'a strange sound like an electric or electronic crackle,' wanting to take a closer look at the UFO, the policemen moved toward it. When they had advanced about 50 meters through the long grass, the police said, the sphere moved away, rose higher and rapidly departed in the direction of Vilnius."
" ... it was noted that the tall grass around the place over which the sphere had 'hung' was flattened to a radius of 10 meters.'
The geography of this FBI translation/writeup from Moscow's news agency is a bit bizarrely described, perhaps something definitely lost in translation, but it looks like it happened on the Lithuanian border with Belarus, some 10 miles away from the city.
"Police commissioner Valentinas Juchnevicius said in a radio interview today that both officers who watched the shining object 'are psychologically healthy, normal people, not noted for crankiness.'
Edit: this is fascinating. More of these I look at, more they look like a lazy search-and-dump of various US intelligence agencies' foreign media monitoring translations. For example, a translated Bosnian op-ed came up mentioning UFOs because the columnist was sarcastically complaining about how Washington normally communicates with extraterrestrials but yet can't find Karadzic (who'd been on the run for a time.)
Maybe they don't let us use their scanners.
 For removal of doubt, I just made that up.
Those were the creepiest scenes from the 80s movies.
We are not alone.
Edit: upon closer reading, you're right, the Morse code item was made up. But I still stand by my point that beyond the fact that they don't seem too keen to release the recording, there's nothing specifically in the document to indicate it is alien or substantial.
> "This was intended to satisfy Davidson that he did not in fact have a space message"
Without other context, that reads to me more like:
1) Davidson made a prior claim that was received as being farfetched.
2) The set of people responsible for this document had another party to assess the signal.
3) They came to the conclusion that it was domestic morse code.
4) They passed that explanation and details back to Davidson to satisfy his presumably intense curiosity about this signal.
Edit: And to be clear, he was an expert on UFOs.
I am making these comments with fresh eyes without understanding him, his background, or context of these articles, so I suppose I will have to do more reading to further understand your arguments.
"Someone wanted to say something else but military PR didn't want that" is wholly not evidence.
But to be fair I don't really understand the alternate reality conspiracy game everyone plays online and might be missing that you're having a laugh.
Can't really see any evidence of a coverup there.
Without any knowledge of what this incident is referring to and with only this context, "the message was in identifiable morse code and from a known US licensed radio station" should by default be more plausible than "a space message".
> "Davidson's criticizing the air force for concealment of information on flying saucers. Incidentally, Davidson is no fool and it appears that ATIC is treating him as one if they think he can be satisfied with a SOP such as Captain's.."
Did Davidson publish context criticizing the circular wing research and development programs?  Or was his criticism directly related to this space message?
DR LEON DAVIDSON IS ON OUR BACKS AGAIN. HE WANTS A VERBATIM TRANSLATION OF THE "SPACE" MESSAGE AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE TRANSMITTER FROM WHICH IT CAME. YOUR ATTENTION IS CALLED TO [ILLEGIBLE]-ETTER TO DAVIDSON FROM WALLACE W ELWOOD X WALLACE W ELWOOD, CAPTAIN, USAF X USAF, ATIC X ATIC, DATED 5 X 5 AUGUST 1957 X AUGUST 1957, IN WHICH ELWOOD TELLS DAVIDSON THE MESSAGE WAS IN IDENTIFIABLE MORSE CODE AND FROM A KNOWN US X US LICENSED RADIO STATION. THIS WAS INTENDED TO SATISFY DAVIDSON THAT HE DID NOT X NOT IN FACT HAVE A SPACE MESSAGE. HE IS NOT X NOT SATISFIED AND EXPLAINS THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SOUNDS ON THE TAPE RECORDING OF THE MESSAGE ARE NOT X NOT MORSE-TYPE. CAN YOU OBTAIN FROM ATIC THE MESSAGE TRANSLATION, AND THE TRANSMITTER, SHORTLY: WE'D LIKE TO DISMISS THIS MAN ONCE AND FOR ALL. IF YOU CANNOT OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION, DAVIDSON IS GOING TO PRESSURE US FOR PERMISSION TO USE CHICAGO OFFICE LETTERHEAD AND OTHER US X US GOVERNMENT LETTERHEAD HE HAS RECEIVED IN THIS MATTER IN AN ARTICLE FOR SOME SPACE MAGAZINE. WE ARE SENDING BY BUCKSLIP THIS DATE A PUBLICATION OF DAVIDSON'S CRITICIZING THE AIR FORCE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INFORMATION ON FLYING SAUCERS. INCIDENTALLY, DAVIDSON IS NO X NO FOOL AND IT APPEARS THAT ATIC IS TREATING HIM AS ONE IF THEY THINK HE CAN BE SATISFIED WITH A SOP SUCH AS CAPTAIN ELWOOD'S."
My take: Davidson got hold of a recording of an unknown morse code message, and started claiming it was aliens. The air force just doesn't want to deal with him, so someone sends him an official letter that says "It's not aliens." He doesn't believe them and says he can tell by the "characteristics" of his recording that it isn't a morse code type machine. He asks for the official identifying information of the source of the signal, and further, pressures them that if they don't respond, he will use some official letterhead he has to fabricate something for a magazine story. The recipient of the message here is being asked to give Davidson that information, if possible. They further indicate they will attach with the letter a story ("buckslip" is a magazine insert, like an ad) of Davidson's, criticizing the air force for hiding UFOs. At the end, the ATIC is admonished for not sending Davidson the full information up front, as he "is no (I repeat, no) fool," and that the previous sop (a concession of no great value in an attempt to appease someone while not satisfying their actual requests) should not have been attempted at all, because it just made him more suspicious.
Furthermore, after reading about Davidson , apparently he never believed it was aliens at all, he was trying to uncover secret CIA experimental aircraft.
Now they ask to find the decoded message and give the man the sending station so he shuts up. At the end they warn that just sending him some no-content letter (or [I am guessing they imply] made-up stuff) won't do.