Government Conspiracy Vs. Government Eyewitness

I often hear about how the government is covering up the existence and visitation of alien beings. NASA photoshops UFOs out of Mars photos, Men in Black visit abductees, shadowy unnamed agencies harbor alien craft and bodies in secret military bases, and more.

Why is it, then, that the most seemingly credible testimony for aliens as UFOs comes from government employees such as astronauts, pilots, high-ranking military members, and so on? Wouldn't the fact that these people are paid by the very same conspiratorial, secretive and lie-spewing government make their statements less reliable, considering they're working within that same framework of lies?

In other words, why is only some of the government not to be trusted, and the rest treated as if they're infallible? And where is the line between the two? Is there a paygrade that an employee cannot exceed if they want to be respected by the ETH community?

reply to post by EsSeeEye


great observation! i have wondered about this as well, and can really only come to one very bitter conclusion that does nothing but keep the ball rolling when you would rather have it stop to examine it. our current government act as the facilitators of both truth and illusion. they're playing mind games, and they've had centuries to get very sophisticated with it.

some seem credible while others seem infallible particularly because some really are, and some really are not. what's frustrating about this is that their places are interchangeable when dealing with an organization which specializes in psychological warfare. some might come off as liars, when they tell the truth. some might come off as telling the truth, when they really are lying.

i think you are eloquently alluding to the brick wall we all keep meeting when we just want a bloody straight answer. that brick wall is their chess board.

reply to post by EsSeeEye


however, in either case, the fact that we get anything but a straight answer should already be an answer in itself, don't you think? why would anybody have to blow any whistles if nobody had anything to hide?

reply to post by facedye


I'm probably shooting this thread in the foot by pointing this out, but isn't it more likely that it's much easier to use what are considered "professional" observations, regardless of their origin, to promote an idea when trying to convince someone who doesn't exactly subscribe to the idea of a huge government conspiracy?

The way I see it, someone who is trying to convince a skeptic that aliens are visiting earth most likely understands that the skeptic is equally as skeptical about a government conspiracy, so they quote a source that the skeptic would trust more so than others, an astronaut for example, regardless of how trustworthy the believer sees that source.

Alternately, it could simply be because the believer and the source share the same opinion, which creates an immediate trust, regardless of affiliations.

You are on to something.

The answer is that the elite desire worship from us.

They desire worship because they already have everything else.

The alien/UFO stories that they release through the government, are to make people believe that they have this extraordinary knowledge and technology, so that people will see them as gods or godlike.

please remove
double post

Yep, your line of thinking is a very big part to this conspiracy.

The more I learn about this from all angles, the more I feel that a false flag alien invasion (Even on the smallest scale) becomes a possibility.

The rabbit hole goes very deep, and has many wrong turns which lead to berlin walls of lies.

Imagine how easy it would be ---- a few flying saucers buzz over New york city - shine some pretty lights at folks. Then a few people go missing.
The news never stops talking about it.
Like poland, would not even need to fire a single bullet to accomplish their chosen agenda.

It's a big card to pull --- and we are talking about some very patient card players.

For some reason, in the little handbook of dominating mankind - it seems to be vey important that we consent to everything they do. Consent I think causes us to all share the lie, turning the lie into a reality.

Area 51 for example, the military LOVED the idea of E.T ----- it meant they could do all the testing they wanted, and as long as a new UFO documentary came out folks would still get excited at the pretty lights over Area 51, never thinking "Wait a minute, what the hell is the military doing?"

Extraterrestrial highway, little AlieInn --- What's that have to do with new technology, anti gravity?
Propaganda caused us to believe it was E.T and not our own military.

Though I also think we are being 'visited', I don't think it matters if they come from another star system or have been 'here' much longer than we have.

All I know is the technology used to fly the UFOs that *I* have personally seen, probably did not need oil to run.

reply to post by EsSeeEye


The OP explained quite well one of the biggest problems with these conspiracy theories. That those who make these things up only selectively listen to the government. When they deny Aliens, it means there are Aliens. If someone claims to have seen Aliens, they have seen Aliens.

Yah ya got someting der Olie.....
But vat aboot all the ordinary people, who have sightings?
Are they agents provocateur too?
I believe some of these whistle bowers and then theres some i just dont......
But i keep my mind open to the rare information connections.......
lets say the Disclosure project(groan)
I believe Wlfred De Brouer......and other, men on the panel.......
But over time....others have turned up blanks.....no names....
The whistle blower testimony has to stand a time test that is scrupulessly iinvestigated by many.....
I believe my brother, who saw a huge triangle flying silently over Nevadas desert one late nite......
I believe my own eyes too.......
Lots of salt and time generally sorts the UFO crowd out......people accuse Friedman of the same, and many other UFOLOGISTS too.........what ya gonna do?

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
I often hear about how the government is covering up the existence and visitation of alien beings. NASA photoshops UFOs out of Mars photos, Men in Black visit abductees, shadowy unnamed agencies harbor alien craft and bodies in secret military bases, and more........

Interesting point EsSeeEye. The question though must go beyond just "the US government" and NASA. Surely the United States does not have a monopoly on such information? Whilst some nations are more open about strange phenomenon not one of them has released anything into the public domain that proves that alien life exists. Which suggest that there is no cover-up , other than the fact that no one really knows what's going on but they can't seem to do a thing about it.

Unless all governments and the related space agencies across the globe are in on the cover-up of course!.

I think its oil money behind the cover up holding the nations of the world at their
beck and call and telling them what to do. The aliens is just a story.
The power of the UFO, originally saucers and foo, can't be matched by oil and
the science they pay out to others to tell us about basic DC Edison style.
The DC of UFOs, propulsion for levitation and horizontal movement, will be oils
secret and used by them without our knowledge.
The power source is all too powerful as any one can understand.
Thus easy to pass on an untrue story about aliens in a world full of stories.

reply to post by EsSeeEye


I guess that comes down to living a lie, and no matter how much cash TPTB chuck at you in the form of a salary, not everyone can live a lie

Originally posted by Zcustosmorum
reply to post by EsSeeEye

 

I guess that comes down to living a lie, and no matter how much cash TPTB chuck at you in the form of a salary, not everyone can live a lie

They are told aliens use UFOs and don't care to argue the point.

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by facedye

 

I'm probably shooting this thread in the foot by pointing this out, but isn't it more likely that it's much easier to use what are considered "professional" observations, regardless of their origin, to promote an idea when trying to convince someone who doesn't exactly subscribe to the idea of a huge government conspiracy?

The way I see it, someone who is trying to convince a skeptic that aliens are visiting earth most likely understands that the skeptic is equally as skeptical about a government conspiracy, so they quote a source that the skeptic would trust more so than others, an astronaut for example, regardless of how trustworthy the believer sees that source.

Alternately, it could simply be because the believer and the source share the same opinion, which creates an immediate trust, regardless of affiliations.

you may very well be right about that, though i still do see some opportunities for abuse here. if we're looking at this from the role of a shifty government think tank, "professional observations" that are in fact disinformation campaigns can be done very easily, and it has happened before. i can only think of any presidential election campaign within the past 20 years as a definable example.

i guess my point here is that a skeptic is a skeptic because they're either unwilling to believe certain information, or conclude that the information presented is improbable and unrealistic. if a skeptic defines him/herself as such, then that person will ultimately be prompted to look at things in a certain way, from a certain point of view. there's not much that can be done other than pass on information that we all can do our own research on.

and that's really what a "professional observation" should be, is it not? in my mind it would be nothing but this, since a professional observation would automatically have the responsibility of being authenticated.

honestly though, do you really think you can change a skeptic's point of view? the only reason someone calls themselves a skeptic in the middle of an open conversation about government conspiracy is because their mind is made up, and they have a strategy that they will use to try and diffuse conflicting arguments. even if you overcome their strategy, they're playing battleship while you're trying to have an enlightening dialogue. a skeptic's only game at that point is to not lose, and to arbitrate until the break of dawn. i don't know how much sense you can talk into an individual like that.

i conclude that crowning yourself as a skeptic is the first step down the rabbit hole of pointless conversation. you're better off having a conversation with someone who will listen

There has been a whole host of people that have come forward and there is still doubt in peoples mind that its not real. How can you make people believe if even highly credible sources are not believed?

1 - Pilots
2 - Astronauts
3 - Military Personnel
4 - Area 51 Employees
5 - Politicians
6 - Doctors
7 - Law Enforcement
8 - Journalists
9 - Civilians

Basically, they want us to know about this stuff, but the whole topic of UFOs must always remain questionable. They don't want to change the world. For example, they can produce some questionable-looking documents containing real information and send them to UFO researchers. Like the MJ-12 documents. That's the way to do it.

reply to post by facedye


I wouldn't go that far. The whole point of skepticism is that the mind isn't made up, and is able to be changed, given the right evidence. It sets a very bad precedent to accuse the entire label of skepticism as close-minded, because it's actually quite the opposite.

reply to post by vortimond


My question pertains more toward my own curiosity as to why an industry can be extremely untrustworthy, while certain positions within that industry are treated as infallible and the pinnacle of trustworthiness.

I.E.
"NASA has been lying about UFOs and photoshopping alien structures out of Mars photos for years!"
"Neil Armstrong saw UFOs so it must be true, because he's an astronaut!"

Both statements contradict each other. If Neil Armstrong is trustworthy, because he's an astronaut and would know if he saw something paranormal, why is he more trustworthy than the NASA folks who pour over videos and pictures of space and other planets every day? Is it simply because one says something that people want to hear, and the other doesn't?

reply to post by EsSeeEye


ah, ideally i agree, but is that really how this scenario plays out? you don't believe that a person who claims they are a skeptic can become capable of being entrenched in their own line of thinking and reasoning? KNOWING they have to think like a skeptic, since that's the title they put forth for themselves?

i think it's much better to see what the use is in being skeptical, and then apply that as an element to understanding the world around you. calling yourself one thing or the other only narrows your perspective, since now you have to play the part!

honestly though, going back to your main observation, i think people generally are in disbelief about the world around them, so they believe some people more than others based on their upbringings and relationships with their environment. you know, something like "i'll trust buzz aldrin over a higher up nasa official any day because i can tell he's got an honest charisma!"

we've seen presidents get elected for less. i'd even go far enough as to say that the general populus really doesn't want to care about mind opening topics such as these, so we resort to agreeing with others only when it fits our desires. strange days, indeed!