I think that ironically, one of the best things you could do to divert attention away from something incredible is to state the truth and let the
debates fizzle to death.
Let's look at it this way. What one sighting, photograph, document or report has ever swayed a believe or a sceptic completely? Conspiracies are a
great fodder for the people who need to keep secrets, because the focus turns to the conspiracy itself and not the event or implications.
Look at any conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, Roswell - where are we at with those stories? Nowhere, is the answer. To this day there are some who believe
completely in the 'cover-ups' and supposed falsehoods, and then there are others who maintain the believers are too quick to believe, and are not
objective. After a while, there are so many shreds of evidence, opinions, theories and ideas that the original event is lost in a quagmire of
suppositions and postulations.
For example, if I post up a picture of a UFO, a description of my encounter, and a document that backs my claim of strange goings on in the area, it
would prove nothing. Some would believe instantaneously - they would feel straight away this was a smoking gun. Some would completely disagree - they
may point to photoshopping, to the misinterpretation of a document, to the discrepancies in an eye witness report. Give it two weeks and its likely
that the issue would be lost amongst the debate.
So, if you want to cause confusion tell the unbelievable truth and let it get distored beyond all meaning. The two sites, the confusion over what was
found, the eyewitness reports and the search for evidence - before long what really happened is impossible to know. I can guarantee that Ramey could
have gone public and told the truth, 100%, and we would still be debating aspects of the event today.
Nothing helps more than confusion and a barrage of information. One of two things happened:
* Either the story was mundane and got blown out of proportion.
* The story was incredible and its meaning got lost amongst the barrage of information and evidence.
Either way, we're no closer to the truth today than we were 60 years ago - doesn't that say something for the power of too much evidence?





