He is not in denial, this is what he does. That is why I have no problems chatting with him about UFOs or Mandela effects or even a rando murder in Portland that he creates his fantasy psy op worlds around. Those are generally harmless topics in the macro sense, but once you start getting to things that do matter - safe to say if he ever said he real beliefs - it would not be pretty.

He found himself a little home here to essentially have his crate to stand on to preach on his virtual street corner. They even gave him his own little thread, essentially his virtual megaphone. Odds are he would be booted out of most other non-conspiracyderp forums by now.

The book title is anti-Semitic.
I agree with that. I agree that it was a mistake to call it only 'problematic' earlier. It's worse than that. I have no ill-will towards any people of any religious or ethnic groups.
You are the one trying to use Serge Monast, a Canadian I have never read, to try attack me as antisemitic when the very Wikipedia you use claims that he is alluding to a secretive Masonic group, and the Masons are Christians.
So it's the title alone that is the issue until we can learn more about him.

I'm not attacking you I'm accurately using him as an example on how your sources are dubious, as you mentioned a specific CT originating from him. Again check your sources out before using them, we leave it at that

Serge Monast is not a source. I only know the idea

Monte,
I try to not have any beliefs.
It's better to focus on things that can be justified.
And it's not a belief that something is up with UFOs.

"they" are a change in policy to avoid the CT's that spawned from the perception of 'secrets' when the gov't would not comment.

That is the easiest and most reasonable answer and not a PsyOp.

So by "they" we mean no one specific, and by a change in rhetoric we mean "It's not specifically a weather balloon, but it's something"? This is meaningless to me. I already gave you a list of articles written in the 40's showing this kind of talk about how it could be foreign technology.


Different to what? With respect, we've already established that you formed this view before knowing anything about the past.

And my position isn't that it's "consistent" in the sense that this kind of talk is always happening all the time. It's that every few years or so we get a spike in interest because it looks like we might have something new to look at. And every time it comes up we get some former military/intelligence agents coming out with their stories.

But when it comes to being able to point to a single bit of tangible evidence that something other than the same old crap is in the skies...nothing. we get videos where people go "Wow, look at that manoeuvre it pulled" when it's a camera shake that you can literally read on the screen display. We get audio of pilots going "What the hell is that massive thing?" and then when you calculate its size using the focal length of the camera (again, displayed on screen) it turns out to be bird sized.

Nothing the Pentagon or elsewhere has released actuall gives us any reason to think these aren't purely natural phenomenon from birds to balloons to optical illusions. Nothing about "What if it's Russia?" hasn't been said before. Nothing.

But you say it's "different" even though you have absolutely nothing to compare it to. It's a bit like seeing a hippo for the first time and saying "This hippo is really different to the other hippos around here". It doesn't make any sense. You have no frame of reference.

Do you think a part of this policy change is to allow fighter pilots to go on CBS news to talk about they saw UFOs every day?

You have gone full nutter LB in claiming 'everything provided to you is specious and cognitive dissonance'.

You can agree to disagree with those who look at all the other evidence and conclude 'nothing is different' despite your claims but to deny it is even credible evidence of such is nutty.

The cognitive dissonance is the people like CV and Bladesman-- who can't at all dispute that UFOs are very much in the news, just wanting to hand-wave it all away as business-as-usual.
Clearly there are fundamental differences between what is going on now vs in the past, and I no longer care to argue this point with them.
One thing people have to know is that when it comes to issues of politics or more social science in general-- it's that there are almost always counter examples. They've found them to make their arguments that nothing has changed. And that's fine. Fortunately we'll get to see who is correct and who isn't.

The Protocols is one of the most well known antisemitic works of recent times. And one of the most debunked. Still, it remains a favourite among Neo-Nazis. No exaggeration. I suppose technically this is a genetic fallacy but inductively we can be pretty safe ignoring anything that comes from that source.

Tbh i didn't think you needed to be into CTs for that one. Just have seen a fascist go on a rant on the internet.

Edit: As another point, the fact official channels now often use the term UAP is actually a step back, because they aren't even calling them "objects" any more or even recognising they "fly". UAP is a much broader to term to incorporate just how much this absolutely real footage might not even be looking at something concrete. It's basically the difference between seeing an oasis and a mirage. You see something, and you can even video that something, but that something isn't even an object.

YES. 100%.

Again, I think that over time enough leaks had come out that many of these videos we were seeing were ACTUALLY taken by US service personnel and the videos were not created in some ones basement.

Again I think they realized that their prior policy of 'not commenting on something we (US INTELLIGENCE) cannot explain lest it spawn CT's' that if US Intelligence cannot explain it then...zomg!''

And they realized that 'many were taking their non comment as affirmation they had buried very real info PROVING they had UFO and alien bodies, etc they were hiding'.

It created the belief 'if they will not even affirm they took these videos and they are not faked...what else are they hiding from us'.


So they changed their policy to better align with their original intent (that failed) and that is to dispel CT's.

Show what we actually filmed and cannot identify (the UFO) and let people see that in many cases they can now be explained in and in others it is nothing more than 'unidentified' at this time. (No need to run to CT's yet)

And allow the personal to talk about. To show they are normal humans questioning what they have seen, a natural thing to do when they see something they cannot explain that astounds them at the time.


If they only released the footage and commanded the personal who took it 'say nothing' or 'restricted them to a tight script' it would again, amongst CT nutters create the exact same problem as their initial decision to not confirm or comment on it, when it was taken did.

In fact it would be worse. CTers would say 'they are now acknowledging they have taken these videos but are afraid to allow the persons with first hand knowledge speak...WHY???'

And down that rabbit hole CTers would run.


This is the best way to dispel the CT's to anyone rationale who will take ALL the new data and simply see the Military is in the same position, I, as an average citizen seeing a UFO over head would be and explaining it on the News at 11. 'We see things, we cannot explain, and it confounds us'. Nothing more and nothing less.


I speak from my own perception here. When I had seen all those prior videos they did give me pause. Not to believe the CT's but to move my needle more towards 'ok, maybe'. I have always been in the 'ok maybe' camp but I moved more away from the 'likely nothing burger side' 'to maybe something camp'. I am not back to 'likely nothing burger' camp.

But you don't get to that.

You are taking on to yourself a sole authority to make declarative statements as fact in the face of everyone else, EVERYONE ELSE, who is reviewing the same material provide by CV as very comparable and thus nothing new is happening now.

You can agree to disagree on that point and say 'we will never agree', but you show yourself as blind to your own BS ('if i declare it thus it becomes truth').

Do you believe that EVERYONE agreeing with CV really does not think that and they are just playing devils advocate or worse are lying for some reason to simply take sides with against you?

How do you reconcile that people who came in admittedly pretty uninformed on this topic are reviewing what you put forth and what CV puts forth and concluding his info and presented conclusions are more believable then yours?

You're right about that. I consider it a rebranding as UFO has stigma associated with me. I'd prefer to just use the old school flying saucer.

So even changing the name with the explicit purpose of making it clear that not all of the things are even flying let alone objects is a sign that they want people to take it more seriously?

All part of the never ending psy op that has no explanation or purpose.

Cuepee,
Few people here would want to give anything I say any sort of credence. They're comfortable with what they think currently and the idea that I might be onto something about something happening with UFOs is a threatening thought. Someone like me is not allowed to know things for a person like Monteroy.
Everyone is smarter than me and knows more about the world and knows that the world is totally normal. UFOs have to be accommodated into that view.
But 2p2 politics posters are certain not "everyone". That's a mistake you keep making here. Bladesman and CV have made interesting points for sure but they are ultimately specious and looking at UFOs in the news today does not require a person to be a UFOlogist.

You don't check the source of an idea? Really? Stop playing dumb LB it makes you look suspect and considering this specific context, again really not a good suspect look for you.

It would not be, although I do think there can be arguments for why they'd do it. But they are esoteric.
Pushing contradictory ideas isn't unheard of through when it comes to propaganda and psy-op stuff. I think part of that can be just trying to sow confusion and cognitive breakdown. We saw some of this with the Epstein stuff.

I am near fluent in Spanish and especially Portuguese which means I can also read French and Italian and I can pretty much understand like 75% of a French text. But I have not read any Serge Monast and have found trouble even finding anything written by him. It's not a topic that I've ever worried about.
So **** off with this 'not a good look stuff".

Dude...I was able to find him within two effin seconds just by googling "project bluebeam" which you proactvely mentioned. He has a wiki page ffs. And you're telling me with a straight face that you couldn't do this too? You didn't get the same results I did??

And no I won't xxxx off this is really not a good look for you and not a hill you want to die on. Playing cute word games re Protocols is equally not a good look.
The source of your"idea" absolutely sucks balls and citing Protocols as a source for one's beliefs is never justified or defensible under any circumstances at all whatsoever and if you refuse to see this then that's your problem not mine or anyone else who's sane and normal.

I've already said it's a bad title.
What more am I supposed to say? I have not read the book and just started watching a video I found on it-- which is in French.
Like I don't get what your issue is here? The very wiki page says he's talking about masons and no one considers the masons a Jewish organization.

So you have created a CT that everyone here is simply against you and thus not truly considering what is being portrayed and they are just 'taking sides'.

I don't say that provocatively or as a slight or 'get'.

I think that is what you are saying. Do you agree?

UFOs need to be accommodated into worldviews. And that's what's happening here.

Still with the cute word games re Masons and ignoring that this was already counterpointed? Again not a good look for you.