Is There a Disclosure Slowly Happening?

[En4cer]

Perhaps it’s not a slow disclosure where they (Government, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, etc. – string pullers) are willingly spoon feeding us a so called part of the truth behind the mystery that is Ufology. Maybe they’re hand has been forced by some unknown event and they are merely testing the waters seeing how far and long they can continue to play out this the game. In sense it would parallel the alternative fuel options vs. the oil crisis. The oil companies will not give in to an alternative fuel source until they are forced to and have all the chips in place where they can continue to control the monopoly. Right now they are teasing us with hopes of ethanol and hydrogen etc. In relation to Ufology I feel the string pullers are buying time so they can continue to control the game and maintain their monopoly on the veil of secrecy. They simply throw us a nugget here and a nugget there when they have to. In turn it tends to keep our appetite for disclosure somewhat satisfied as we continue to believe its just right around the corner. I don’t see the citizens of various countries ready to storm the steps of their respective governments demanding disclosure. The string pullers see this and are probably saying to themselves “Ah we can keep this ruse going for at least another 50 to 100 years for now.”

 

[TClaeys]

Yes, it's simply this - unless you've personally experienced these phenomena (and I haven't), then ALL of this information boils down to anecdotal evidence. In the end, you have to make a judgement about the people who are relating their experiences and whether you believe them or not.

Even if the witnesses are sincere, that still doesn't get us any nearer to an explanation for the phenomena - UFOs may be something entirely related to natural phenomena rather than intelligently piloted craft from 'elsewhere'. Mass hallucinations may be a real phenomena triggered by geological events, cosmic rays or unusual weather patterns. Who knows?


...I know, I'll start a new thread entitled "Who likes me?"

I'm in the same boat Deckard. I've never experienced anything of a UFO nature. Or ghosts, or bigfoot, or really anything else. And this is what makes my interest wane from time to time. But it seems to be the sincerity of witnesses and encounters that keeps my interest, at least for now. Today that is.

So while it isn't able to EXPLAIN anything, it is able to keep my interest. Then again sometimes I just wake up and think about how this is ALL probably just BUNK. And it very well could be, but today, I think it isn't.

But disclosure isn't eminent. The more groups try to put pressure on the people in power, the more foolish they look. And the further away we become from any type of truthful disclosure. We look at Bassett who is far beyond ETH being a truth. It is a fact to him. Yet every interview I've heard with him, he doesn't discuss the basis for this being a fact, he just discusses the reasons, implications, and process of disclosure. He doesn't reveal the apparent facts of ET being here. This makes him look severely dogmatic, and gets us farther away from the truth, not closer. And with the help of other advocates of silliness like Webre and Salla the government can sit back and laugh. I don't see the current movement moving anywhere but backwards.

 

[macavity]

Fully agreed, and if there's room for one more in the boat count me in.

It's clear to me that the vast majority of popular paranormal and ufo-related content on the web and TV is purely for entertainment, money or both. With that said, there are commentators and experiencers who give me pause for thought (a number of them post here). Sorting the wheat from the chaff takes a lot of work, though...

A quick additional edit: now that I think about it, if it wasn't for David's Venezuela sighting and the sincerity of Jeff when he talks about his own experiences, I might have given up all interest entirely not long ago...

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Fully agreed, and if there's room for one more in the boat count me in.

It's clear to me that the vast majority of popular paranormal and ufo-related content on the web and TV is purely for entertainment, money or both. With that said, there are commentators and experiencers who give me pause for thought (a number of them post here). Sorting the wheat from the chaff takes a lot of work, though...

A quick additional edit: now that I think about it, if it wasn't for David's Venezuela sighting and the sincerity of Jeff when he talks about his own experiences, I might have given up all interest entirely not long ago...

It's easy to think that what we see on TV is simply pandering to the audience, delivering "product" that will garner the highest possible ratings.

That, to me, appears to be true in and of itself.

On the other hand, some of the revelations we've heard over the past decade or so, such as the growing acceptance of the scientific community that there are life-bearing planets out there in abundance, and, lately, that the Vatican will even accept aliens as "God's children" might be part of a calculated program to prepare us for the news -- whatever it might be.

Or maybe not!

Did I win the bet David?

You'll have to listen to our May 18th episode to figure out what I'm talking about.

 

[Ally]

I find it interesting that so many thoughful intelligent people on this forum say they haven't had any paranormal experiences.

I don't think I would spend the time and effort to participate in a paranormal forum if I haven't had personal expereinces. I am just curious why the people who have not had ANY experiences even care about these topics?

As far as diclosure goes, I personaly think that the government knows alot about the UFO phenomena and will probably keep it a secret as long as they can.

 

[louis belanger]

I never saw a UFO.But I realise that there is a phenomenon called UFO.I started by eliminating all luminous or lighting phenomena and there is still some evidences that Ufo is real phenome non. ask DAVID BIEDNY.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Yes, it's simply this - unless you've personally experienced these phenomena (and I haven't), then ALL of this information boils down to anecdotal evidence. In the end, you have to make a judgement about the people who are relating their experiences and whether you believe them or not.

Not so, Mr. Deckard. Radar/visual cases verified from multiple, independent witnesses and landing trace evidence are not anecdotal.

--Allen

 

[Aaron LeClair]

If the gov. is doing anything of value to it's citizens, it's slow.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Yes, it's simply this - unless you've personally experienced these phenomena (and I haven't), then ALL of this information boils down to anecdotal evidence. In the end, you have to make a judgement about the people who are relating their experiences and whether you believe them or not.

Not so, Mr. Deckard. Radar/visual cases verified from multiple, independent witnesses and landing trace evidence are not anecdotal.

--Allen

Fair enough - now, how do *I* know that this evidence is genuine and meaningful and what does is it prove anyway?

Is radar technology 100% reliable? Do they have 'ghosts in the machine'? Can several flocks of geese flying within a few miles of each other confuse the radar and flag it as a UFO? I've no idea.

What I do know about software (being a professional programmer) is that the more complicated the system, the more likely it is that you'll encounter 'unexpected' effects - in other words, 'bugs' in the code.

 

[Poi]

LOL

Don't watch that much TV, pixelsmith. Found all those newsy things on the internet. (Which is usually worse.)

I like Rick Deckard. So there.

 

[schticknz]

I just want to mention that this week there have been 3 relatively big news stories related to UFOs:

(1) The Vatican says that its ok to believe in ET:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm

(2) Astronauts say that life on other planets probably exists:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/12/astronauts_say_et_is_out_there/

and,

(3) the UK releasing some of its UFO files (see thread I started) and this article on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7398784.stm

(yes, gentle reader, this one again is one of those articles which make you want to strangle somebody ... but especially Dr David Clarke who wrote it).

Now is there something afoot ... or is it just a triangular coincidence??

I for one can't tell as my mentalistic powers are not working at the moment (got to take the brain to the doctors again ) ... though would like to suspect that its probably a bit of both.

Still I bet the disclosure guys are probably frothing at the mouth over these stories, and who can blame them

 

[louis belanger]

I agree that photos and videos are not reliable evidences.We have to rely on withnesses ;they are not all hallucinating.When they see a physical structure floating in the air with a description of ports or satches it can not be an optical illusion.

 

[louis belanger]

We can argue about the quality of the withnesses and the quality of there perceptions.But ,all I need is one good whitness.And we have one on the Paracast

 

[Lavarat]

The past 8 years have featured a failed ideology from the Bush Jr. Christian Coalition that's main purpose was to fight "The Evil Doers" smoke em out and bring em' to justice. There could be no worse time ever than during the Bush era, of war, oil, and christian policy.

Once W packs his stuff and takes the B train back home to good ol' texas to resume life on the farm riding horses and stairing at cow chips, we can get a real government in the beginning of getting back to someone sanity.

My point being that its a good time to focus on a new direction and a good time for goverments to admit there is life outside war and oil

 

[Rick Deckard]

We can argue about the quality of the withnesses and the quality of there perceptions.But ,all I need is one good whitness.And we have one on the Paracast

Fine - no disrespect to DB, but *you don't know for sure* that David is telling the truth. It is *possible* that he's making it all up.

There may be some genuine witnesses out there that truly believe that they have experienced something extraordinary, but there are also people who are pathological liars, there are people who are con artists, there are people who are paid to push an agenda on behalf of a third party, there are people who are just plain mistaken, there are people who crave attention and there are people who are mentally ill (the list goes on...).

Now, how do *you* know for sure which group a potential witness belongs to when they all present 'credible' testimony?

 

[macavity]

Fine - no disrespect to DB, but *you don't know for sure* that David is telling the truth. It is *possible* that he's making it all up.

Absolutely right. I've mentioned a couple of times that I find David's Venezuelan encounter compelling but there's no way I can ever know if it represents objective fact (would I have seen the same thing if I'd been standing next to him, for example?) At best, reports from credible sources - whatever credible may mean - can only ever stimulate my interest and make me wonder what really happened.

I always find it hard to understand why so many people find reports utterly convincing when we clearly live in a world where lies, embellishments, hoaxes, frauds, misinterpretations, mistakes and so on are everyday facts of life. Possibly the answer to that is that I'm not an "experiencer" and have had no first hand confirmation of anything beyond what might be termed "mundane" reality. If I had, perhaps I'd be more persuaded. On the other hand, perhaps such an experience would leave me even more vulnerable to the lies and exaggerations of those who set out to exploit people with an interest in the paranormal.

I guess there's no easy answer, other than to keep pushing forward with an open mind and a sense of humour...

 

[louis belanger]

There is no end to doubts.I like to give a chance to a runner.I am a skeptic by education and nature ,but I refuse to be a pyrrhonist.

 

[David Biedny]

Well, I understand the skepticism about my story regarding the Caracas encounter, but remember, my brother would have to be lying as well. What does he stand to gain by making up his memory of the experience? He's a relatively private person, who does not have the level of interest in these topics that I do, and he came on the show and described what he saw. My parents are both deceased, otherwise, I would have had them come on the show as well, to corroborate my story.

Meanwhile, folks, I swear on everything I hold to be true and good, that I am telling the truth about what we saw. I don't claim to know what it was, where it came from, or what it was doing in Caracas that day, but we saw exactly what I've described on the show.

dB

 

[Ally]

There are certain people on this forum, like David ,that have a VERY genuine quality about their perceptions and how they speak about their experiences. My filters say he is quite geniune.

I do not doubt David. It may help that I have had experiences myself. I gather from some of the skeptics on this forum that it is difficult to gage who's who in this field becasue it has been SO infiltrated with cons, hoaxers and mentally ill people.

How do you hard core skeptics gage anyone's stories? I am sure you have to use some type of intuitive or mental analysis

 

[Rick Deckard]

Once again I've dragged us off topic...sorry.

Meanwhile, folks, I swear on everything I hold to be true and good, that I am telling the truth about what we saw. I don't claim to know what it was, where it came from, or what it was doing in Caracas that day, but we saw exactly what I've described on the show.

It wasn't my intention to bring into question the sincerity of your testimony. I only mentioned your name in response to the previous poster.

The main point I was making is that despite our best efforts to focus on the issues rather than personalities, it appears that a lot of 'evidence' is entirely anecdotal and is accepted as 'fact' by people because they've made a judgement about the sincerity of a witness based on a 'gut instinct'.

Unfortunately, this willingness to accept evidence based on self-constructed 'confidence' leaves the door wide open for the profiteers to push their crap into the arena. Will that lead us to the truth - I doubt it.

Back to the topic - the recent release of the UK UFO files generated a couple of news stories on mainstream TV here in the UK. The ones that I saw were spun as 'little green men' stories. I can't see how that indicates that we are close to disclosure.