Disclosure? UFO Briefing for Ronald Reagan Released

This was posted quite a while ago when people were taking Serpo seriously. The point today is that this post stood for a very long time until recently, and after much deliberation on the part of many people. It can be said that the statements of Ronald Reagan were not necessarily implausible, while the larger picture shows that the problem is with Serpo, not with the Reagan statements in and of themselves. Sometimes secrets are buried in a mixture of fact and creative lies. Whether the Reagan statement in and of itself is a "hoax," may well be debatable even today, but since it appears in no other source than Serpo it is less likely to be plausible.

So why disparage the initial effort anyway, no one really knew for certain at the time, and it was a debatable matter?

The title of this post says "Disclosure? UFO Briefing for Ronald Reagan Released." If asking a question is a "hoax," in and of itself, then you may as well remove the post, rather than leave it in this "dunce cap section." I am not the initiator of a "hoax," here at all, only someone employing the Socratic method.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by SkipShipman]

This is not a comment on the veracity of the document, which will remain questionable until more sources can be found, but instead just a reply to some of the reasons it's being dismissed.

Reagan's *administration* did in fact change the political landscape, but how much credit he can personally take for this is entirely questionable. The difference between any causal exchanges he had with people in public and the power he projected in prepared speeches is stark, to say the least.

There's a book that sheds some light on the subject called "LANDSLIDE: The Unmaking of the President".

Landslide

In it we learn that there was a distinct lack of comprehension on the president's part for any number of major political issues. He was one of the most "hands-off" presidents we've ever had. He delegated nearly all of his official responsibilities to other people. His "advisers" were more like handlers. He would be propped up and handed speeches which he would go and deliver with a sense of brilliant gravitas, without ever concerning himself as to their content. He was an actor.

I've known many actors like him in my life. Able to thrill audiences with rousing text, but little competition against a box of rocks intellectually off stage. I'm not accusing him of being unprincipled or deceptive. The core things he believed in obviously came from a genuine place and they rang true with a large part of America. But the policies and scripts were written by others who's agendas were often deliberately obfuscated. The trust he placed in others can sometimes only be described as childlike and the evidence for this is voluminous. Many allege that Nancy had more influence over events than Ron did, and she openly consulted psychics!

So the nature of the questions and answers about "physics" in the text don't surprise me at all when you consider that everyone is the room is struggling to make this information accessible to the ultimate neophyte.

In a very broad sense, it could be said that the laws of physics would be different on the other world because it's under the influence of two large gravity wells. I could imagine that could occasionally manifest itself in very strange ways in relation to our experience on Earth. Trying to lay down a basic foundation to even begin to explain the actual properties of it would take a great deal of time, even if you were trying to explain it to an exceptionally smart person with no background in astrophysics. I can see why they would want to frame their answers in accordance with the best understanding the could expect from the listener. So the speaker could well be parsing the question into something more like "Does a ball dropped on their planet behave like one would here".

I've been repairing computers for several decades. Sometimes when I overhear people saying they need to get more memory because they're running out of space to store their files, I don't even bother to correct them anymore by saying that what they actually need is more hard drive space, not memory. Because after several hundred times of getting the glassy stare and then receiving later confirmation that the information did not sink in, you just learn to better judge your audience and adjust your approach as the learning curve allows.

*If* the document is a hoax, then the author gets credit for one of the most brilliant ironies I've ever read. When Reagan takes a dig at Carter for not being briefed by saying he's from Georgia and therefore probably wouldn't understand it anyway. Which flies in the face of reality since Carter was being trained in the Navy to be a nuclear powerplant operator, before his father died and he resigned his commission. The subject and details of Nuclear power remaining of strong interest to him all throughout his political career. Although his presidency got bogged down in a series of crises, Carter was by far Reagan's intellectual superior.

[edit on 16-7-2009 by Raybo58]

As for what appears to be excessive use of the the prefix "Mr. President" to nearly every sentence; having been in the military, I can assure you that failing to address any superior officer with their full title at the beginning of every new thought is considered a serious breach of protocol, with only limited exceptions. Those possibly being that you are already very good friends with them and you are speaking in private or that you've been given specific permission by them to do otherwise. When the subject is the President himself, the office demands even more formality. Even if the occupant were the most humble man on Earth, he would be advised to not to drop these trappings out of respect for the dignity of the office. You'd be hard pressed to find a quote from any sitting President requesting that a visitor call him by his first name.

So, to sum up, I don't find anything at all incredulous about the *character* of the conversations. The content, I will agree, is debatable.