posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 08:17 PM
I think people misunderstand and the guy from Wikileaks probably doesn't have the background in UFOs to know what he has even if he's read the
communiques. Something, seemingly totally insignificant outside of the field of UFOs could actually mean way more tot hose with the right
Lets say, a well known debunker is congratulated for doing a good job on case x by some diplomat to a friend and all the communique says is. Y did a
great job with the media on case X. Well yes, to those with no interest in UFOs, it's nothing. To many of us it would be a pretty big.... "See, told
you the person was a government stooge".
It could be someone who has consistently claimed no interest in the subject in public, talking about therm in private. Again to a non UFO person, it
won't mean a thing, to people on here it could be a real eye opener.
For instance what if one communique contained the following .... "Yes, well you'd have to be a true dummy to believe in the dummy explanation".
Now if you have no interest in UFOs would that have any meaning to you? Probably not? You'd probably just see a huge "Huh?" from most people. To
someone involved in UFOs that sentence would probably mean one thing..
It's all about context. I doubt the wilileaks people have the background to truly analyse what the UFO data is. So yes, no ..."Hey Vladimir what are
we going to do about these damned aliens and their saucers?". That doesn't mean, to a more acutely aware eye, they will be wholly worthless. Let's all
wait and see, you never know, there might just be a true nugget or two of true value in the low level chit chat, that was, remember, never meant for
edit on 11-12-2010 by FireMoon because: spelling of course