Questionable gain gambled against a likelihood of great pain (as in de-stabilized control) is the risk those in-the-know must be looking at when it comes to disclosure. So, why take the lid off?
Rather than a calculated, trickle-down disclosure agenda, more likely the aging patchwork Dam-of-Denial is unavoidably cracked and leaking.
So what’s the government actually know?
Probably a lot, since they get to sift and coordinate the wreckage and all the good reports the public is denied.
But that doesn’t mean they’ve got a handle on the situation, or even enough information to evaluate it to anyone’s satisfaction.
NSA technology looking out into space may not be such an unreasonable thing - if there’s someone out there that wants us to know it - and knows how we listen.
I think the questionable bag of voices in the UFOlogy "presenter" line-up sells more tickets, (via the “wow factor”) so it’s hard to pass up, economically.
But if believable people like Dolan DIDN’T participate at those events ANYWAY, UFOlogy would be perceived as even more wacky than it is already. Credible speakers like Dolan bring balance to those gatherings, but yes, risk cost to themselves.
Carl Wolf’s alien moon-base discovery claim sounds questionable.
I work on a classified program for Lockheed Martin. We have janitors with clearances so they can come into the area and clean, but they don’t get access to Program information. They don’t have a “need-to-know.”
Besides the appropriate clearance, each individual also has to have Special Program Access for the given Program, and it would be an unacceptable breach of security to share Program intelligence information with someone who had come in to fix the equipment.
Even those granted Program access are only privy to the extent necessary to do their jobs.
David’s well-stated summary comments, postulating the necessity of an “individual quest” aspect into finally understanding the UFO phenomena (even invoking the “G” word) sounds worth further consideration. But I was surprised at how readily he then dismissed Gene’s questioning of the validity of the “external” reality as a possible pathway to solution..
Gene smoothly deferred (Dolan-style) and Dave reverted to happy again, as the reasoning dropped back into a more familiar, categorical, stop-destroying-the-planet, warning “box.”
If you don’t know the answer, how can you be so sure where NOT to look? Especially where understanding the very “nature of reality” (as you speculate) may be involved.
An “external” physical universe may not be the “bottom-line” we assume it is. Boundaries between inner and outer, subjective and objective may one day be understood quite differently; and answers that seemed so elusive “out-there,” surprising in their proximity.
Great show!
Rather than a calculated, trickle-down disclosure agenda, more likely the aging patchwork Dam-of-Denial is unavoidably cracked and leaking.
So what’s the government actually know?
Probably a lot, since they get to sift and coordinate the wreckage and all the good reports the public is denied.
But that doesn’t mean they’ve got a handle on the situation, or even enough information to evaluate it to anyone’s satisfaction.
NSA technology looking out into space may not be such an unreasonable thing - if there’s someone out there that wants us to know it - and knows how we listen.
I think the questionable bag of voices in the UFOlogy "presenter" line-up sells more tickets, (via the “wow factor”) so it’s hard to pass up, economically.
But if believable people like Dolan DIDN’T participate at those events ANYWAY, UFOlogy would be perceived as even more wacky than it is already. Credible speakers like Dolan bring balance to those gatherings, but yes, risk cost to themselves.
Carl Wolf’s alien moon-base discovery claim sounds questionable.
I work on a classified program for Lockheed Martin. We have janitors with clearances so they can come into the area and clean, but they don’t get access to Program information. They don’t have a “need-to-know.”
Besides the appropriate clearance, each individual also has to have Special Program Access for the given Program, and it would be an unacceptable breach of security to share Program intelligence information with someone who had come in to fix the equipment.
Even those granted Program access are only privy to the extent necessary to do their jobs.
David’s well-stated summary comments, postulating the necessity of an “individual quest” aspect into finally understanding the UFO phenomena (even invoking the “G” word) sounds worth further consideration. But I was surprised at how readily he then dismissed Gene’s questioning of the validity of the “external” reality as a possible pathway to solution..
Gene smoothly deferred (Dolan-style) and Dave reverted to happy again, as the reasoning dropped back into a more familiar, categorical, stop-destroying-the-planet, warning “box.”
If you don’t know the answer, how can you be so sure where NOT to look? Especially where understanding the very “nature of reality” (as you speculate) may be involved.
An “external” physical universe may not be the “bottom-line” we assume it is. Boundaries between inner and outer, subjective and objective may one day be understood quite differently; and answers that seemed so elusive “out-there,” surprising in their proximity.
Great show!