My opinion on the recent soft disclosure

originally posted by: pheonix358
Perhaps they rely on Subspace Communication and are simply not listening.

Our signals have only been propagating for the past 100 years at best.

It is not a long time and also our signals do not propagate in a sphere. The sun gets in the way of a sizeable chunk of the sky as we go round and round.

Maybe SETI has found lots of evidence of intelligent life through signals and the results are being suppressed. The whole purpose of government is to prevent the masses from becoming "excited". Unless it's a false flag attack and the government's purpose is to get the people excited so they can carry out a desired policy with popular support.

The premise of this whole thread I kind of question. I'm not sure the government would ever do anything that might result in chaos reaction from the masses.

I think the tic-tacs might be von Neumann probes. In the Joe Rogan interview with Cmdr. Fravor, Cmdr Fravor makes a pretty good case these UFOs could not be man-made.

Yes.... I am gratified to see someone else has realized that we are experiencing Disclosure.

We are currently in Phase 2 of Disclosure.

The Abovetopsecret website (ATS) was the initial seed for Disclosure when TFT (The finaltheory) leaked the TIC-TAC video on this website in 2007.

The First Phase of Disclosure started on Dec 16 2017 with the publication of the NYT article.
We are in Phase 2 with the signing of the CRADA to test UFO/UAP components.

I will explain what Phase 3 and 4 might entail...
Welcome to Phase 2 of The Disclosure Project

As I predicted.....elements of Phase 2 are now in the Public Domain:

UAP eXpeditions is made up of former military officials, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, and academics.

BREAKING NEWS :

This Silicon Valley Startup Is Dedicated to Detecting UFOs Off the California Coast

UAP eXpeditions is a non-profit group based in Oregon that will “field a top-notch group of uber-experienced professionals providing the public service of field testing new UAP related technologies.”

Leading the team of scientists is Dr. Kevin Knuth, a former scientist with NASA’s Ames Research Center, now an associate professor of physics at the University of Albany. Knuth specializes in machine learning and the study of exoplanets. While the organization and the project is still in its infancy, Knuth told Motherboard that “the goal of the expedition is to give us some ground truth. We aim to try to observe these objects directly, and record them using multiple imaging modalities.”

I am suspicious of the CEO of the company but this is still forward momentum for The Disclosure Project.

www.vice.com... m

I don't think there is a soft disclosure, in that any one body of anything said "Let's release information slowly." Much of the information we are getting are from varied sources. All the military has done to this point is admit some videos were indeed theirs, and shows unidentified objects. Which don't get me wrong, is huge - prior, they have always opted for utter silence regarding the subject.

All the info from different entities may end up being near the same as "soft disclosure," but I don't think it's deliberate.

And let's remember, according to the eyewitnesses who saw it the day it happened, the Flir video was around 10 minutes long and much clearer, showing a white tic tack with it's *antenna* visible. What the public sees now is a short, censored version.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: AgentAnderson

We need to strictly ban and outlaw the use of weather balloons and then see if people are still experiencing UFO phenomena.

We also need to ban Chinese lanterns and ALL drones, both military and civilian.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: dfnj2015

Are you telling me or asking me
Why
I am not sure what fox has to do with me and why?

when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

How many phases are there and how long til the last one?

originally posted by: AgentAnderson
So what? Why the disclosure? I mean, maybe it isn't. But it looks 100% like soft disclosure. I think it's true that if aliens landed on the White House lawn, people would flip right out. Not everyone. Maybe only 5-10%. But enough to seriously disrupt society, at least short term.

If aliens landed on the white house lawn, the majority of the world would think it's a "deep fake" or a hollywood production. I doubt there would be any flipping out, except for the few conspiracy-tinfoil hat types that are already flipping out.

As far as this being soft disclosure, I think its more realistic to think that the government and the media both acknowledge that there's something unknown out there in the skies. But what is it? It's an unknown.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
And let's remember, according to the eyewitnesses who saw it the day it happened, the Flir video was around 10 minutes long and much clearer, showing a white tic tack with it's *antenna* visible. What the public sees now is a short, censored version.

As pointed out many, many times, Fravor states that: only he and three others saw the object with the naked eye; advised us to discount the colourful accounts of others; and that the footage 'released' (that was swanning around on YouTube for many years) is all that was filmed by the crew that flew out after Fravor's return.

Do you regard Fravor as a liar, or do you believe this is a short, censored version of the FLIR footage?

If Fravor is lying, are we supposed to believe, for example, that Kevin Day really DID see hundreds of objects on radar and received psychic healing powers and the gift of premonition from the incident?

Where do we draw the line of Truth regarding the Nimitz witnesses?

originally posted by: gusamaso
How many phases are there and how long til the last one?

That's an excellent question.
There are four phases to the Disclosure process.
The project as a scheduled end date of Sept 21 2025.

Then crap like this could happen, and it hard xxx porn.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Do you regard Fravor as a liar, or do you believe this is a short, censored version of the FLIR footage?

No on #1 and Yes on #2.

I think Fravor is telling the truth, as I see no reason to think he is lying. But he may be confused on some of the details.

We have several people claiming the original FLIR video they saw that day on board ship was much longer and clearer than what the public sees now. I see no reason to think they are lying either.

Patrick Hughes has explained nicely why Fravor would not know about the filmed evidence being confiscated.

What we need is all these people in a room together hashing out their own accounts on film for everyone to see.

a reply to: ConfusedBrit

What do you think the tic tacs are?

Sorry can you point to the source claiming they have found life on mars as you've asserted? Im not aware of such a claim. I am aware NASA made a statement they "may"find life in the next year (quite an odd statement) but not actually asserting life is found.

I'm at a loss how anyone could call this disclosure. The military videos don't claim other worldly origin, simply unknown. The far more likely origin is terrestrial... in fact zero reason to think otherwise beyond pop culture. It be like claiming they are ships driven by angels. Most today will find that based on old beliefs.

Those claiming disclosure didn't want to wait for facts, their mind is already made that we are being visited by space aliens!

a reply to: AgentAnderson

a reply to: Rob808

example


The difference between disclosure and soft disclosure is significant.

Some really interesting discussion! I should have said in the OP, I didn't mean to say that the actual Nimitz encounter was fake or disinformation (it may be, idk, but that's a different topic). The information for such things is tightly controlled. What I meant was, there is some data, such as life on exoplanets or a moon or something, that will be discovered by multiple parties. This information, hard scientific proof of et life, probably intelligent, can not be suppressed the way UFO sightings have always been.
Because it can't be supressed the government is forced into soft disclosure. A UFO sighting can be many things. It's easy to control the narrative. But when a bunch of independent astronomers confirm something? That might be impossible for them to control.

The media's handling of the topic is just too measured. I'm not even talking about any specific article or show, but all of them. How they are worded, how they are released relative to each other. The validity of any particular case isn't important here. It's how they are presented.

I had this idea bumping around for a while now, but the Bob Lazar interview solidified it. Why dust off that guy? When there are so many credible witnesses and events? It's not about releasing some kind of proof. It's about creating public discussion.

Lazar has some glaring problems. But his story is compelling and he seems genuine. I don't want to get into that case because whether or not his thing is true isn't the point. The point is that the Lazar case is controversial and will create more public interest than a less controversial case.

They did studies in the past about it. And to me this stuff looks exactly like what they said soft disclosure would be.

originally posted by: ConfusedBrit
Fravor states that: only he and three others saw the object with the naked eye; advised us to discount the colourful accounts of others; and that the footage 'released' (that was swanning around on YouTube for many years) is all that was filmed by the crew that flew out after Fravor's return.

I saw this very part last night, and had actually seen it before and forgot about it. It is in the Joe Rogan interview.

I do not think Fravor is lying, I just think that he is wrong about the extra film, since others on board the ships watched longer, clearer versions of the same thing. And they personally witnessed two different helicopter pickups of evidence removal. Fravor is the only one who mention "Men In Black." The others mention "plain clothed", "plain suited" and uniform men who were not shipboard personnel.

Like Phillips explains, there was no need to notify Fravor that the bricks were taken and no need to have him sign them out.

It seems they wanted to slow down the pace of disclosure a little then

Edward Snowden searched the CIA's networks for proof that aliens exist. Here's what he found

I think, if Fravor is genuine and we have intelligent high capability aerial vehicles like that in our atmosphere, it doesn't matter if someone know what they are or not. They are definitely not ours or in our control. If they were, that would be even more crazy than acknowledging the existence of extraterrestrials in my opinion. Somehow acquiring that level of technology and hiding it from the rest of humanity.

I agree, a great topic. could you share what "disclosure" or "soft disclosure" means to you?

What's currently taking place, some sources which carry some legitimacy with them have provided some subject matter for discussion. No claims or evidence of alien life. I find it very strange frankly people somehow assume UFOs are associated with space aliens, or NASA discussing possible microbial life equals disclosure of military using harvested space alien tech. Why not assume UFOs are black ops or break away humanity tech? Another species from earth? As someone who's spent nearly 15 years deeply entrenched in the lore, I believe some have simply made up their minds as to what is taking place and aren't open to all possibilities. One being there are no visiting aliens. Which opens up, what is it people see in the sky?

Truthfully you cannot prove your claims, you can only speculate as to the nature and reality behind the evidence you've presented as disclosure.


a reply to: AgentAnderson

False. your claims are unprovable, and could only be proved ironically if something was disclosed.

no a reply to: celltypespecific