truthfollower
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,841
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Why Not Release All the UFO Videos?
Members of Congress are reportedly ‘gobsmacked’ at 40 minutes of U.S. Navy footage. Why not let the public see ‘the good stuff,’ not just the grainy dots and specks?
This is not an image from classified government UAP footage. It sprung from the imagination of British artist Colin Price, who created a rendition that gives one an idea of what “the good stuff” seen by members of Congress and the National Security Council might look like on screen. Imagine how the global conversation about UFOs would change if footage showing this degree of scale, clarity and sheer UFO woo were made public. [Image used with permission]
After Congress was briefed on the classified portion of the Pentagon’s UAP report in June, D.C. power player and scientist Robert McGwier participated in a panel discussion on the Canadian UFO and paranormal radio program Spaced Out Radio and said he’d heard from an acquaintance in the closed-door session.
The briefing, he said, included the National Security Council and members of Congress — just how many of the latter, it wasn’t clear from McGwier’s off-air remarks during one of the show’s breaks, which are live-streamed on YouTube while radio listeners hear commercials. This elite audience of Washington power brokers was privy to information that has not been publicly released.
“Seventy pages and 14 videos,” he said. “They got to see the good stuff.” Later in the program, he added a caveat: “I want to make very, very clear: I heard no classified information whatsoever.”
Bob “the science guy” McGwier is a respected voice in the ufology community.
McGwier, affectionately known as “Bob the Science Guy,” is an academic and active member of the ufology community. His Twitter bio mentions that he’s a member and supporter of @SkyHub10, a network of civilians using technology to catalogue anomalous events that they they share with researchers.
An expert in radio technology with a Ph.D in applied mathematics from Brown University, he joined the Institute for Defense Analyses Center for Communications Research, a non-profit think tank in Princeton, N.J. in 1986. When he was hired in 2011 to head a research center at Virginia Tech, the school noted that McGwier’s work with the U.S. government had earned him the intelligence community’s “highest honor” in 2002. His job at Virginia Tech, according to the school, was to “develop strategic research relationships within the industry and government working in the national security sector.”
Put another way, he has connections in Washington D.C. McGwier continued:
Imagine video, then, that gives you the palpable feeling of shit getting unnervingly real, of the world shifting beneath your feet. It’s what the American philosopher and physicist Thomas Kuhn called in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a “paradigm shift,” or what philosophy and religious studies professor Jeffrey Kripal calls “the flip.” Out with the old, in with the new — and the woo.
Make no mistake: The videos we’ve already seen, acquired and published by the New York Times (and those reportedly leaked and subsequently dribbled out by ufologist and filmmaker Jeremy Corbell) are extraordinary, game-changing documents. They are, at this point, probably the most famous “authentic” UFO videos ever seen by the public. Future books on the topic will probably feature images from these videos the way UFO books published during the 1970s and ’80s included the famous Trent photos from McMinnville.
Thing is though, they’re not enough.
Time to drop the fig leaf
The Pentagon, the U.S. Navy, whoever the hell is in charge of deciding what the American public can and can’t see, needs to do better. If the 40 minutes of “science fiction” is half as good as the description, that could very well suffice to make Neil de Grasse Tyson realize that the E.T. theory (even if these videos don’t “prove” that) belongs high on the list of possibilities.
It’s time — no, it’s long, long past time — for the U.S. Government to drop the fig leaf of “national security” bullshit.
Here’s how people like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon explain it: An aircraft carrier or fighter jet are, beyond their immediate, obvious military functions, data-collection machines. That’s the “defense” part of national defense. Deep within the bowels of a USS Nimitz or USS Princeton, highly trained professionals monitor all sorts of sensing and tracking equipment around the clock. Some we know about. Of course they have radar.
But they also have toys you and I don’t know about, high-tech tools that give them information the United States can use to defend itself against hostile forces. That’s what R&D is for, to give armed forces a technological leg up on other nations.
So the argument goes like this: “We can’t share that information with you — and, actually, we can’t even say if we have that information — because if we did, we would be giving away our secrets.” It would allow China or Russia to peek behind the curtain. We don’t want to let them to know that we’ve figured out how to track Russia’s “x” or detect China’s “y.”
And that’s understandable. One need not be a military hawk to at least sympathize with the argument.
But here’s the thing … and this may come as a surprise to some, but hear me out, because I’m going to pull the curtain back. Hopefully I’m not taken away by men in black and you never hear from me again. Ready?
China and Russia know we have video cameras.
Seriously, they do. So do sea-faring pirates (yes, there are still pirates) and drug smugglers. They all know. They’ve got video capability, too. Everyone does. Literally — thanks to ubiquitous phones around the globe that effectively combine two of the three essentials carried by every Star Trek landing party: a tricorder and a communicator (but not the phaser) — EVERYONE.
You’ve got a camera, and you’ve got camera. Everyone has a camera.
What we don’t have, however, is the “gobsmacking” video that a few select members of Congress apparently got to watch behind closed doors. We know it exists. In one podcast, Elizondo mentions the existence of video of a UAP that was very close to the camera. Can you even imagine?
For now, you basically have to.
Given his non-negotiable allegiance to his Non-Disclosure Agreement, one can rest assured that if Elizondo told the world that the Pentagon has video of that quality, then the knowledge that we have such a video is not, in and of itself, a matter of national security. It’s literally a part of the commons at this point.
Except, of course, the video itself.
But what if … ?
There’s one other argument one might anticipate, which is this: Supposing that the “Tic Tacs” and triangles are ours? Then we don’t want to let Russia and China know that Tic Tacs are part of the American armed forces toolkit. Also: If they were actually made and operated by the Russians or Chinese, we don’t want them to know that we know they have it.
Another newsflash: If they’re Russian or Chinese, they already know we know they have it. They knew ten years ago. And if not then, certainly, the New York Times story spilled the beans in 2017 and the charade ended four years ago.
And if they’re ours, they probably would know that, too.
So let’s cut the crap. Seriously.
Of all the possibilities that have been ruled out, officials have been most adamant that the UAPs that were the subject of ten years of study were not made or operated by the United States. To listen to those in the know, no one seriously believes that scenario is even on the table anymore.
As to the possibility that they’re foreign adversaries, Sen. Mitt Romney said it about as clearly as one can in a Sunday morning interview on CNN with Jake Tapper earlier this summer. He said:
Without actually saying that, of course. He’s not saying they’re aliens. But he basically saying they’re aliens, a scenario he would (purely hypothetically, of course) “frankly find hard to believe.”
It’s time for the Pentagon to give us a movie night for the ages. Release the video. The good stuff. We paid for it, we know you have it, and everyone knows (basically) what sort of equipment you used to get it. It doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to all of us. We paid for it. So let’s all see it, together, so this conversation can move forward.
People, get ready.
@SQ8 @PanzerKiel @Blacklight @Ark_Angel @Rashid Mahmood @airomerix @Hodor @Raider 21 @dbc @gambit @Dazzler
medium.com
Members of Congress are reportedly ‘gobsmacked’ at 40 minutes of U.S. Navy footage. Why not let the public see ‘the good stuff,’ not just the grainy dots and specks?
This is not an image from classified government UAP footage. It sprung from the imagination of British artist Colin Price, who created a rendition that gives one an idea of what “the good stuff” seen by members of Congress and the National Security Council might look like on screen. Imagine how the global conversation about UFOs would change if footage showing this degree of scale, clarity and sheer UFO woo were made public. [Image used with permission]
After Congress was briefed on the classified portion of the Pentagon’s UAP report in June, D.C. power player and scientist Robert McGwier participated in a panel discussion on the Canadian UFO and paranormal radio program Spaced Out Radio and said he’d heard from an acquaintance in the closed-door session.
The briefing, he said, included the National Security Council and members of Congress — just how many of the latter, it wasn’t clear from McGwier’s off-air remarks during one of the show’s breaks, which are live-streamed on YouTube while radio listeners hear commercials. This elite audience of Washington power brokers was privy to information that has not been publicly released.
“Seventy pages and 14 videos,” he said. “They got to see the good stuff.” Later in the program, he added a caveat: “I want to make very, very clear: I heard no classified information whatsoever.”
Bob “the science guy” McGwier is a respected voice in the ufology community.
McGwier, affectionately known as “Bob the Science Guy,” is an academic and active member of the ufology community. His Twitter bio mentions that he’s a member and supporter of @SkyHub10, a network of civilians using technology to catalogue anomalous events that they they share with researchers.
An expert in radio technology with a Ph.D in applied mathematics from Brown University, he joined the Institute for Defense Analyses Center for Communications Research, a non-profit think tank in Princeton, N.J. in 1986. When he was hired in 2011 to head a research center at Virginia Tech, the school noted that McGwier’s work with the U.S. government had earned him the intelligence community’s “highest honor” in 2002. His job at Virginia Tech, according to the school, was to “develop strategic research relationships within the industry and government working in the national security sector.”
Put another way, he has connections in Washington D.C. McGwier continued:
Which is to say, 40 minutes of video of UAPs doing their thing out over the ocean, running circles around U.S. Navy aircraft carriers and fighter pilots, whatever it is they do out there. Not fiction, but actual reality.
Imagine video, then, that gives you the palpable feeling of shit getting unnervingly real, of the world shifting beneath your feet. It’s what the American philosopher and physicist Thomas Kuhn called in his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a “paradigm shift,” or what philosophy and religious studies professor Jeffrey Kripal calls “the flip.” Out with the old, in with the new — and the woo.
Make no mistake: The videos we’ve already seen, acquired and published by the New York Times (and those reportedly leaked and subsequently dribbled out by ufologist and filmmaker Jeremy Corbell) are extraordinary, game-changing documents. They are, at this point, probably the most famous “authentic” UFO videos ever seen by the public. Future books on the topic will probably feature images from these videos the way UFO books published during the 1970s and ’80s included the famous Trent photos from McMinnville.
Thing is though, they’re not enough.
Time to drop the fig leaf
The Pentagon, the U.S. Navy, whoever the hell is in charge of deciding what the American public can and can’t see, needs to do better. If the 40 minutes of “science fiction” is half as good as the description, that could very well suffice to make Neil de Grasse Tyson realize that the E.T. theory (even if these videos don’t “prove” that) belongs high on the list of possibilities.
It’s time — no, it’s long, long past time — for the U.S. Government to drop the fig leaf of “national security” bullshit.
Here’s how people like Luis Elizondo and Christopher Mellon explain it: An aircraft carrier or fighter jet are, beyond their immediate, obvious military functions, data-collection machines. That’s the “defense” part of national defense. Deep within the bowels of a USS Nimitz or USS Princeton, highly trained professionals monitor all sorts of sensing and tracking equipment around the clock. Some we know about. Of course they have radar.
But they also have toys you and I don’t know about, high-tech tools that give them information the United States can use to defend itself against hostile forces. That’s what R&D is for, to give armed forces a technological leg up on other nations.
So the argument goes like this: “We can’t share that information with you — and, actually, we can’t even say if we have that information — because if we did, we would be giving away our secrets.” It would allow China or Russia to peek behind the curtain. We don’t want to let them to know that we’ve figured out how to track Russia’s “x” or detect China’s “y.”
And that’s understandable. One need not be a military hawk to at least sympathize with the argument.
But here’s the thing … and this may come as a surprise to some, but hear me out, because I’m going to pull the curtain back. Hopefully I’m not taken away by men in black and you never hear from me again. Ready?
China and Russia know we have video cameras.
Seriously, they do. So do sea-faring pirates (yes, there are still pirates) and drug smugglers. They all know. They’ve got video capability, too. Everyone does. Literally — thanks to ubiquitous phones around the globe that effectively combine two of the three essentials carried by every Star Trek landing party: a tricorder and a communicator (but not the phaser) — EVERYONE.
You’ve got a camera, and you’ve got camera. Everyone has a camera.
What we don’t have, however, is the “gobsmacking” video that a few select members of Congress apparently got to watch behind closed doors. We know it exists. In one podcast, Elizondo mentions the existence of video of a UAP that was very close to the camera. Can you even imagine?
For now, you basically have to.
Given his non-negotiable allegiance to his Non-Disclosure Agreement, one can rest assured that if Elizondo told the world that the Pentagon has video of that quality, then the knowledge that we have such a video is not, in and of itself, a matter of national security. It’s literally a part of the commons at this point.
Except, of course, the video itself.
But what if … ?
There’s one other argument one might anticipate, which is this: Supposing that the “Tic Tacs” and triangles are ours? Then we don’t want to let Russia and China know that Tic Tacs are part of the American armed forces toolkit. Also: If they were actually made and operated by the Russians or Chinese, we don’t want them to know that we know they have it.
Another newsflash: If they’re Russian or Chinese, they already know we know they have it. They knew ten years ago. And if not then, certainly, the New York Times story spilled the beans in 2017 and the charade ended four years ago.
And if they’re ours, they probably would know that, too.
So let’s cut the crap. Seriously.
Of all the possibilities that have been ruled out, officials have been most adamant that the UAPs that were the subject of ten years of study were not made or operated by the United States. To listen to those in the know, no one seriously believes that scenario is even on the table anymore.
As to the possibility that they’re foreign adversaries, Sen. Mitt Romney said it about as clearly as one can in a Sunday morning interview on CNN with Jake Tapper earlier this summer. He said:
Here you have a respected United States Senator and former U.S. Presidential candidate telling a global audience, basically, that the UAPs the Navy is tracking — the ones that, after ten years of study they still cannot identify — were not made by human hands.
Without actually saying that, of course. He’s not saying they’re aliens. But he basically saying they’re aliens, a scenario he would (purely hypothetically, of course) “frankly find hard to believe.”
It’s time for the Pentagon to give us a movie night for the ages. Release the video. The good stuff. We paid for it, we know you have it, and everyone knows (basically) what sort of equipment you used to get it. It doesn’t belong to you, it belongs to all of us. We paid for it. So let’s all see it, together, so this conversation can move forward.
People, get ready.
@SQ8 @PanzerKiel @Blacklight @Ark_Angel @Rashid Mahmood @airomerix @Hodor @Raider 21 @dbc @gambit @Dazzler
Why Not Release All the UFO Videos?
Members of Congress are reportedly ‘gobsmacked’ at 40 minutes of U.S. Navy footage. Why not let the public see ‘the good stuff,’ not just…
medium.com
