Yeah, I read them, and I am familiar with your routines. Others here are as well. Perhaps they work better on the other sites you likely post on.

Average deflection on your part. We agree on that of course. Happy hunting, stay on this important story and keep us updated. Do not hold back - this UFO thing is something you should let loose on and share with us everything you consider about it. This can be your next Portland! Thanks!

All the best.

It doesn't seem like there is actually a single person here who believes that "disclosure" is a real and eminent thing and that the news or people like Reid/Rubio/Elizondo should be taken at face value.
So that's at least helpful. Although one wonders then exactly what we're arguing about or why the Trollys and Monteroys are coming at me so hard in this thread, when we're more closely aligned than with those who do take these things at face-value.
So the questions are: is this just "fluff" and "same old same old" UFO stuff as they are alleging, or is something "different" that is not fluff and not "same old same old" happening like I'm alleging.
The good news is that we will get to find out.

Right. Which is what i captured here "...can't that be explained by a simple change in policy?..."

A simple change in policy from keeping UFOs a secret from the masses to revealing them to the world?
But I would say your post doesn't capture that at all.

Monte,
What is the funnest and craziest thing that I've said about UFOs in this thread? (It does actually exist here).
But turning this around on me like it's my topic when it's actually a ruling class topic is pretty funny.

Keeping 'inconclusive, speculative data, the type that might foster CT, secret'

TO

'understanding that the fact they have 'some' data and are 'keeping it secret' is, in itself spawning CT's and defeating the original purpose'

And thus simply releasing that they have observed many things they cannot explain (UFO's) and that is all they have in those files, seems prudent to me.

And I do not see the Rubio et al comments as particularly meaningful. I don't give them credit for being smarter than a typical person and it seems they are speaking from their opinions drawing on the same info most of us have and not some top secret memo's only they have access to.

Marco Rubio is the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Until the Democrats took the Senate, he was its chairperson. The Senate Intelligence committee is also one of the groups that has been pushing this: Senators want the public to see the government's UFO reports: "This issue has lacked attention from senior leaders," the Senate Intelligence Committee says.

Based on this information, is it still your claim that Rubio is just talking out of his ass?

What I heard in that video was him say that we didn't need to go as far as aliens. I don't know why an American politician might say what he did, maybe it's just a no-loss way to get his name in the press? All he's really saying is "We need to investigate this", which is something I pointed out the US has actually been doing since the 40's, so aside from someone pointing out that it's already been (and continues to be) done there's no downside to his position. Politicians love that kind of posturing.

Again, look at the history of Project Bluebook. All sorts of people were kicking up a fuss about cover-ups and the need for investigation. Rubio isn't new in saying any of this. If anything he's 80 years late to the party.

I don't see any reason to think that this is any different to the absolute nothing that's happened before. A bunch of stuff has got to the point it can be declassified, a bunch of people get all excited swearing that this time we're going to find the smoking gun, and I suppose I'll look foolish if this time is finally the real deal, but we've been here before plenty of times.

Full disclosure will just be a bunch of stuff that doesn't answer any real questions or verify anything extra-terrestrial imo. I'd be more excited if the declassifying was about Identified flying objects or previously thought to be unidentified--it's kinda built in that stuff will still remain open-ended. As it is we'll just get--ya we(possibly) saw some things

Have the govt tell us everything they know about the stuff they don't know--sounds very catch22

As I said - just keep building on that something "different" is happening thing regarding UFOs. Spend a lot of time finding bits and pieces of information that you can interpret for your agenda here, since this is a harmless topic. Be sure to include a huge dose of you "we all agree on" thing you do, like


Whatever it takes to keep you occupied with UFOs works for me. Keep on it. Research it hard. You were destined for this task.

All the best.

Sure.

But I don't see Rubio saying 'wait until you see what we have been hiding' and instead it seems more to me of...


'understanding that the fact they have 'some' data and are 'keeping it secret' is, in itself spawning CT's and defeating the original purpose'

You dodged my question: why is “the media” pushing this?

I'm very much open to the possibility that nothing comes of this and at least in the short term it's what I expect.
But I think you're misrepresenting the change of attitudes in government some. The shift from obfuscation and denial to what now amounts to a bipartisan push towards disclosure does represent a major change. And when you combine that with the rhetoric we're seeing, it doesn't really seem like "business as usual" at all. Like with the relevant Rubio comments

"There are things flying over...national security installations. We don't know who they are. We don't know what it is...it isn't ours....we need to find out".

It's true that he says it doesn't "have to be aliens" and that it could be Russia/China-- but it isn't like Rubio is the only one saying things of this nature either. And while they're all saying slightly different things, the big picture view is still the same: they're telling us that the little green men are here. It seems clear that they want people to think this now whereas before perhaps that argument could still be made but it was through a lot more indirect means. Now it's coming from high level politicians and mainstream news outlets.

Your question contained a flawed premise.
But I don't actually know the answer to it. I can only speculate and that's not something that I'm too much inclined to do in this thread. Although see my answer in the post above this: it does seem clear that they want people to believe.
One other point is that it's more government that is pushing it and not media per se.

Yeah, your conspiracy nonsense is always so predictably lazy. No who or why, just “this is funny” and then you wander off.

Why should I do all your homework for you when you can't even think rationally?
First maybe try acknowledging that some things are funny and then get back to me.

The problem we're having is that you keep pointing to some perceived difference in attitude and I pointed you to this happening decades ago. It's been a while since I did my conspiracy readings on this stuff, but there was all sorts of pressure from different sides when it came to Project Bluebook. There were panels and investigations and released documents.

All you're saying is "Okay, but this time really is different". Well, maybe, but that's what's said every single time this topic has come up over the past eighty years. It's always "different" this time round. There's always politicians, or ex-military/intelligence agency types commenting. There's always some papers about to be released.

To me, this is just how conspiracy theories come and go. If it's not aliens then we're just a step away from finding out the truth about psychic powers, or the Kennedy assassination, or 9/11, or Princess Diana's death, or whichever conspiracy is on the cusp of the truth coming out.

I need something tangible or it's just a case of wake me up when something good happens. Trying to read into a politician like Rubio taking a media opportunity does nothing for me.

A. It’s your ****ing theory and you’re the guy who sees through the propaganda, you put the work in.

B. “The government is controlling the media to occasionally show Ancient Aliens on the history channel” isn’t convincing or even interesting without any motive. Seems more likely that we occasionally get space alien stories because there’s some number of people who will click on these links and watch these shows.

It sounds like you're more versed in UFO stuff than I am-- as all the attitudes around Project Bluebook and what was said and who was saying it, I do not know.
Although if you want to make the argument that this has been a long con then that would be one I'd be receptive towards. But without knowing the ins and outs of the points your making regarding the history here, I'm pretty skeptical that the positions being taken now are too similar to what they have been historically and would want to see some citations there.
I do understand your attitude here though even without that, but still fail to see how people can't see that we're in unprecedented territory here. There has never been a time in any of our lives where this topic has received the sort of attention from high places that it is receiving now. The "wake me up when something actually happens" is still an ok attitude to have, but my interest is less on UFOs and more about government/media propaganda.
Also, we shouldn't focus on any one individual. This isn't Marco Rubio doing all of this by himself. There are lots of players involved and you can't just treat Rubio's comments in a vacuum.

Your "B" shows your dishonesty. Marco Rubio, Harry Reid, this Elizondo guy, Haim Eshed, Chrisopher Mellon, etc do not equate to "ancient aliens" on The History Channel.
Perhaps if you were honest about things we would be able to have different discussions.

So what do the Illuminati people get out of making Marco Rubio talk about aliens?

Should this be a question that I'm required to know to the answer to before I can speculate that not all is on the up and up when it comes to [checks notes..].....the rollout of UFOs?
Or if I don't know the answers there should I just stfu about it and "believe"?

Nah, you should speculate and then build on that speculation with more speculation. Thanks!

All the best.

The cognitive dissonance that the "anti-conspiracy" people here (Trolly, Monte) must have must be enormous.
Like clearly you want to attack me for my views, but you have to do so in a way that doesn't involve you going to bat for UFOs.
It's got to be a tough line to walk for you guys. Not that I feel bad for you.

The bolded i think is addressed by my prior post.