All coming out of the closet all of a sudden.
My sense is that anyone's coming out is good commerce right now. Advertising dollars, all about the dollars because we are being distracted from world politics. When economies tank, paranormal stuff tends to flourish in society, probably because we
need distractions, but the means to help that along exists within our technological know how.
However, and this is just a series of brain farts that rumble on occasion, I read sometime back from an author I don't remember, that disclosure would indeed come about if one only recognized it. In other words, it wouldn't be obvious that it actually is disclosure. I filed that tidbit away just because it was purposely intriguing, but I don't find it reliable. Just cruising with it for the moment.
Could it mean that the only way to disclose to increasing numbers of skeptics is to actually stage events like those in Texas, the ones that do get national coverage? That certainly doesn't happen often and the ridiculous statements by the Air Force only further suspicion and speculation that the events are real.
We, those of us who know something fantastic is afoot, bother to seek out reports that appear genuine. We don't miss any of the reports. But skeptics never bother to hear any of them unless they're thrown into their respective realities. They will never tune into any of the popular TV shows that abound right now. So how would a commission of disclosure advocates force that reality, regardless of it's true nature, into the consciousness of an unsuspecting and skeptical public? Maybe by mainstream admission to the fantastic, reducing the giggle factor one media jughead at a time.
No one would actually have to stage an event either. All someone(s) would have to do is let it get out to the general public, perhaps allowing the more fantastic to become a genuine artifact of common knowledge a bit at a time. That would explain why the recent mass sighting in California didn't get national coverage. Back to back sightings might be a bit much for new initiates to process with any form of equanimity.
Jeremy's interview with Lloyd Pye at TBOT explains medias' reasoning for the skeptical point of view's insertion into any paranormal programming. The idea is to allow the public a sense of safety. It allows those who can't handle the truth to at least be exposed, but to return to their comfortable paradigms in order to sleep through the night. Exposure happens though. A seed is planted.
Still, here's where I circle back to what I hope is some form of sanity. Why would anyone disclose if it means secret technology might be exposed? Why would an unsuspecting public be courted for any reason? If they are being courted for reasons beyond advertising dollars, what are those reasons? If so, is there good intent behind such limited and controlled disclosure? Are media figures being encouraged to come forth with admissions of belief for the same reasons? Why, when their scoffing has been so effective? Why might we be manipulated?
There are at least a hundred questions I won't even bother to include here. That's in fact what makes me toss the whole shebang out. It's explanation enough that we are being distracted from real world situations of grave intent and outcome. Advertisers go where the bucks lead them too. It's probably just that simple, but it leaves nagging questions, brain farts aplenty.
Thanks for clarifying where it was at, wonder why they put it in with those from Stephenville then.