Too bad there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

Why should anyone stop it? This is a perfect topic to consume time of conspiracy people.

There really is no way anyone can get "heat" on a topic like this. It is like getting heat with a Bigfoot discussion on a different dinosaur style niche message board somewhere.

Lucky, take your time to describe the details of what you see as the plot behind what you believe is happening. No rush. Use the time to do a lot more research on UFOs and then toss some more thoughts out (as you see fit) to construct your UFO narrative properly. If you never even state your specific reasons why things are different now, other than by answering questions with questions - that is an excellent use of your time and resources, and I look forward to your upcoming revelations in that regard, even if you never offer anything new.

Yes, we all think it's the same. And we can all name a lot more people too (and CV, me, and others have done).

The question is for YOU to give us some actual criterion by which we can compare and say "Oh, I guess it's not the same then". That's the onus for you to show you have a reasonable position here and aren't simply repeating what every UFO enthusiast has said since before Close Encounters came out.

I'm not a UFO enthusiast. That's like 75% of the issue here is and why there is this misunderstanding.
But there are actually ways to go about this. There is something called qualitative news frame analysis and ways of looking at issues like these in a systematic fashion. But I don't have any much inclination to do that. It still could be useful to learn about those techniques though so maybe.

Well I'm trying to think of non-insulting ways to describe not just you but people who have put similar positions forward in the past about how "this time it's different". I think it's clear you're not an enthusiast yourself, more sympathetic. But that makes it harder to understand what you think is different this time. I couldn't think of anything better than UFO enthusiast.

Normally if I talked to someone like you they'd be predicting what news is about to break, telling us what the media psyops are "preparing us" for, or speculating from what's been declassified as to how much they must really know. You're not doing any of that. I get that. But that means you also aren't giving any of the criteria that those people would give me to make an evaluation of. You're saying it's "different" but when I ask you to name the thing that's different, you go list things for which we've given you plenty of examples of having occurred repeatedly in the past.

I'm giving you the out here. The out is for you to tell us the thing that you can point to happening now for which there's no instance of in the past. That would be the thing that actually IS different. It doesn't seem like you have that. It seems like you're going off your gut here, and I'm saying you can't ground that intuition in anything actual.

Bladesman,
I've already posted plenty of that you guys have just ignored it.
And this isn't about some fantasy about "disclosure being imminent". That's literally what lots of people in media are saying-- which has literally been my only point-- that this is being said not from kooky ufo nutters but is being pushed by mainstream media and government. That government officials former or retired in times past have talked about UFOs doesn't mean that the level of attention now isn't different.
Like the world does change. Things don't just always stay the same.
Surely there is someone reading this who is capable of parsing sentences who can back me up here?
I should also make it clear that I also am not sympathetic in any way to "UFO disclosure" people. This is about government and media for me.
As far as what I can "ground my intuition in"-- I would likely need to learn the techniques of news frame analysis like I mentioned or something along those lines to do so.

Yup.

But sometimes people like Lucky do end up in positions of power over other people. And with such a blind spot and inability to understand or comprehend basic logic when it conflicts with what they 'want to believe', that can do real harm.



See.

Lucky simply cannot accept that :

- he can believe these factors are unique and illuminating in a way we have never seen before

and yet others:

- can believe these factors are not unique or illuminating compared to what they have seen before.


Even when he admits he has not seen much in the past, he is still prepared to state as if fact 'that nothing in the past compares to this'.

As that is how far his delusional confidence of his position goes. He is saying "I do not need to know what was done in the past but I can say as if fact that it does not compare to what we are seeing today'.


And he will continue forever to argue that is a fair and correct stance, thus proving why that joke was so effective for Carlin in highlight the obliviousness of certain people with regards to their subjective view and assuming simply because they believe it, it must therefore be fact.


Lucky is the butt of the joke, whether he is able to comprehend that or not.

Cuepee please read this and tell me if it goes more with your narrative or mine and tell me what issues you might have with it.
Also-- were Carter and McCain the same as Rubio and all the rest of the current and former officials now or does it only seem the same because they're all politicos?

That's exactly what it does mean.

When you say this is different because government officials and mainstream media are talking about it, and I say "Hey, you know that government officials and mainstream media have been talking about it since the 50's" that's me showing they're the same thing. What you need to do is offer some other criterion by which we can discern the two instances.

It seems like your answer to that now is to say "There's some form of analysis someone might be able to do to show that". Okay, that's fine, but if you haven't already done that analysis, and from the sounds of it don't even know how to do such an analysis, then we have literally nothing to go on.

You need to offer some kind of analysis like that BEFORE you conclude that this time is different. Otherwise we're back to some gut feeling that we can't pin on any specific observable.

This is a great point, and you should hammer it home more to the doubters here that they are not using this system you mention that you give no details with how it works, since you rightly have no inclination to do so. Obviously it, whatever it is, can be theoretically useful, but really it (whatever it is) requires more research and discussion and questions answered with questions, and pretty much zero specifics. After that another theme can be presented that uses the same approach.

This is definitely a powerful point and tactic and I look forward to your further revelations on this and other undefined concepts in the future when you do more UFO research, because today is different, for some reason, even if none of the rest of us have any idea how it is different.

Bladesman,
Are the articles that I list here (click through to see) data points in my favor? And if not, why not?

You're right that I have no idea how to do qualitative news frame analysis or any sort of QA.
You are wrong that all government officials discussing UFOs are the same.

No. Because you haven't offered me any criterion by which I might be able to distinguish it from the similar past events you've been told about.

How could you possibly make that conclusion if you don't even know how to apply the kind of analysis that might make that conclusion? Other than an intuition.

I believe he was using a theoretical example of qualitative news frame analysis.

I try to avoid analogies since they sometimes make things worse, but here goes:

Imagine you pour a glass of tap water, take a sip, and say "I think this water is different to the water I had yesterday because it's clear"

I say "I had a glass yesterday and that was clear too".

You say "Well, this seems clear in a different way to past water".

I reply "How are you discerning that?", to which you respond "Well, we could take that leftover water from yesterday and today's sample and run it through a colorimeter to show for certain its clarity is different".

I retort "Okay, but until you've done that, we've got nothing to go on".

That seems to me to be the conversation here. For everything you've said about today's water, I've said it was the same in the past, and when I ask if you currently have any discernable reason to demonstrate today's water is in fact different we get a hypothetical example of a test that could be run.

I already said I was basically done with this thread and said everything I had to say. Now it's just that people keep arguing with me about what that is-- which is fine.
Can you read the substack piece and tell me your thoughts on it though?

My intuition works well when it comes to media and propaganda.
Remember that next month supposedly things are going to happen when this report is released that will go to one of our positions.
And I think you guys will likely come out on top but maybe not. But there really isn't a need to beat this thing to a pulp when we know that the facts are set to change.

From that article:

The last few days have seen a flurry of UFO news, sparked by recent articles in the New Yorker, the New York Post, and Politico surrounding the upcoming Pentagon report on UFOs this June required by Congress. The articles, collectively, sought to legitimize the question of flying saucers as a serious issue of national security, relying on the same small group of sources, and they appear to have achieved that goal.

What issue is there to take with this? Would the 'legitimization' of UFOs as a national security threat go to my position or yours?

Thank you for your propaganda intuition and theoretical qualitative news frame analysis, and for pointing out that things are different, even though the differences cannot be explained.

We have a month apparently before something happens, or as you predict happens or does not happen, so you are good to go, but this also would be a good time for you to get some more insight and opinions in so we can be better prepared next month when some important news happens or does not happen. With that in mind, if you can share any concepts you think may or may not happen next month or some other time or never that would be appreciated. This all helps show what we all know - that facts are set to change from something to something.

The issue is that I keep pointing out that Project Bluebook was a government program which investigated various UFO incidents, compiled them, formed panels to discuss them, recruited scientists to investigate them, got intense public scrutiny, and it happened back in the 50's and 60's. And that we've had similar things to "a flurry of UFO news" since then.

Literally everything you're saying has happened before. And when I ask you what distinguishes the now from the past then very best you've come up with is a hypothetical analysis which you don't even know what it is, let alone have actually done.

Have you googled Project Bluebook? Just read the wiki page.

But this time it's "different"...

From your article Luckbox:
...What "hysteria"? There isn't any.

Dun-dun-duuuun!!
Dudr's another conspiracy theorist seeing patterns that aren't there.

The whole point of that piece is that there is a Bigelow connected clique that's been pushing this. We don't deny Bigelow’s role right? Leslie Kean's connection to him seems relevant when she was also the co-author of the original December 2017 NYT article that started this trend.

How do you know? Because Jason Colavito said so? Dude can't even get his facts right. He claims Elizondo worked for the Pentagon when there's no evidence of this, Elizondo appears to have merely claimed it. my second post itt covered this.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...7&postcount=12

If Colavito can't get his info correct what makes you think he's correct about any other claim he makes? And again what "hysteria"? There's no UFO hysteria going on.Seriously. As I said he's another CT guy. He sees patterns and presumes hysteria when there's neither.

And how is Kean relevant? To what end and for what purpose? And here's where we reach our impasse as you seem reluctant to actually concisely articulate your...suspicions? Thoughts? Whatever it is you think is going on that we can't see.

As Blade pointed out project Blue Book and its predecessors was in totality a 22 year investigation into the issue as in a public non clandestine scrutinized one- that's far more significant than a few MSM reports today and that started nearly 75 years ago.

So again this is nothing new and your reluctance to actually spit things out and say what's actually on your mind means we'll gain no progress here, I reckon.

I do not post that facetiously, as a joke or to troll.

That literally encapsulates the answer better than any of us ever could.

You simply have to accept that there is a segment of society who cannot distinguish between 'their opinion' and 'what makes sense to them' and what they then can call 'fact' or 'correct'.

That is clearly Lucky.

He is going to continue to represent his opinion as objective fact because he believes it to be. Even when he admits he has not done any research...'does not matter, I am convinced it is different'.