It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
First off let me state. This is my first real thread on the forum, and I hope I am complying with all rules and regulations in posting this. If not, feel free to lock/404 this at your pleasure and I will not be mad in the slightest. Here goes.
Could the new TV series be a tool of disclosure?
I for one believe, that aliens are in fact engaging us here on planet earth. There are multiple forms of evidence to confirm that there is something not of this earth showing up/landing/etc.
In believing this though, there are some hardships to overcome. The main one being, "why isn't anyone 'reliable' covering this?", or "Why would they (US Gov) keep this from us?". The answers to these questions are still unclear.
For a while now, I've been seeing videos on YouTube, that are stating that we are coming up on full disclosure from our government. This seems plausible to me, seeing as, they have let too many cracks continue to form in the wall of denial. There is a strong movement of individuals pushing to let this information out, and put what they know into the public domain.
This all brings me to what I just saw that made my jaw drop. I was strolling here on ATS when I stumbled upon a thread talking about the new show. So I started to look into it and of course ended up on the wiki and saw this:
I saw the episode names, and it hit me, could this be the tool for exposing the masses to the truth? Sure the names may be made to look convincing, but its thought provoking to me.
Just in case you don't believe the episode titles on wiki (as they are not currently on IMDB), I traced the source listed on wiki to the website for the show, and this is what I saw:
Source: Nat Geo
At this point I may seem like a cook but, just making observations and discussing them people. I'm not saying I saw this in a dream, or that it is fact, just openly toying with the thought.
edit on 14-3-2014 by andr3w68 because: Source name given, and grammatical error