Monetize the UFO Phenomenon... Blasphemy!

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The most important thing is to realize that-

There are no governments. They are a smoke screen, in reality a unity exists where it matters.

Money does not exist. In the sense when someone of importance is doing something, money is ours, not theirs.

When speaking about (truly) advanced research, it is not funded with money, money is for buying a cheeseburger.

I agree with this - and that’s not a contradiction to my stance on monetizing the phenomenon.

Money is in fact what keeps us compliant and dependent on “the system”, but, figuring out how to use that system against itself would be a fun exercise if someone could pull it off.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

The most important thing is to realize that-

There are no governments. They are a smoke screen, in reality a unity exists where it matters.

Money does not exist. In the sense when someone of importance is doing something, money is ours, not theirs.

When speaking about (truly) advanced research, it is not funded with money, money is for buying a cheeseburger.

I agree with this - and that’s not a contradiction to my stance on monetizing the phenomenon.

Money is in fact what keeps us compliant and dependent on “the system”, but, figuring out how to use that system against itself would be a fun exercise if someone could pull it off.

I have thought about this too, but have reached to the conclusion that the existing system must be destroyed, i personally do not believe that it could be changed. Better to start a new one.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

Why is it that when someone manages to monetize the UAP/UFO/ET phenomenon, members of the community become irate and consider it blasphemous?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

When a UFO, Paranormal, ET, otherworldly phenomenon channel monetizes... the channel instantly becomes less about the truth. The monetization overcomes in the face of content. Suddenly, its more about publication and subscriptions, than it was about reality and realism.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

I agree with you. Even ATS has a role here in trashing fact. Look what one OP did to Alison Kruse. Look him up in members. You wont find a trace of him.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well here you go; his stats. Took off after the hit job on Alison back in 2011;


last visit
SeeingUFOzPA
Member
Dec 22, 2009
155
36
422
0
Jan 11, 2011



So here's some of my junk. ATS OPS went nuts trying to bash me on the moon pic with object at 6:00

There is no problem with a proper scientific study like the current one studying the lights at Hessdalen in Norway. Proper funding and use of scientific methods to study and report on the topic is perfectly acceptable.

The problem with ufology is that its no more scientific than astrology going by a number of characters. Some who have been in the field years. Stephen Greer - enough said about that man.

Then you have the dearly loved by many and so called investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe. She happily promotes known hoaxes as real even long after they are debunked.

If you want an example where there is no doubt she is promoting crap here she is with "Herr Groath" on Ancient Aliens promoting the MJ-12 document known as the SOM 1-01 Special Operations Manual.



You will note that at this point in the video that it is dated April 1954



On page 13 of the pdf linked above (numbered as 10 in the manual) it states crashed ET craft should be sent to “Area 51 S-4” in Nevada. But it was an undeveloped portion of Nellis Air Force Base and was not given the name “Area 51” in 1954. In fact it was called the "Ranch" then and wasn't even scouted for use until 1955. So if you are an investigative journalist why are you not spotting this? I am not one and many others aren''t but we can see this for ourselves.

On page 10 of the pdf (numbered 10 inside) it brazenly states possible cover stories for recovery of UFOs. One being "downed satellites". Written in 1954 when there were no satellites in orbit other than the moon. How could you use that as a cover story in 1954?

Again this is not journalism it promoting fakery as fact. There are plenty more examples. Ray Santilli and his alien autopsy comes to mind.

So there is no problem taking a fair days pay from the topic. But when you deal in fakery and lies to make that money then we have a serious problem don't we?

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
This is True , People gotta Eat ........

Yeah, so make fake videos and add ludicrous sensationalist headlines so people, who probably have no idea behind the true nature of why ufology existed in the first place, can get cheap thrills while still maintaining the whole subject has no substance.

Channels like this do not help anything, apart from lining the pocket of a charlatan that is

Yeah , Tell that to the Mountain and Insurance Companies , Big Tech , and the Banking System . Wealth should be Available to EVERY SINGLE PERSON on this Earth . If you as an Individual Cannot seem to Discern a Truth from a Lie , then that's Your Problem and Not the Rest of a Aware Society . Get with the Program , or Seal your Own Fate ..

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Because it doesn't work that way. If you want to make money from something you want it to keep on going. The goal of ufology is supposed to be disclosure.
It's like the health industry those things should not be done for profit. But to achieve a goal.

can't you still feed your family along the way to achieving that goal, or is there something wrong in that? if a person is putting 100 % of their time into making a goal happen, or helping to achieve a specific goal, why can't they support themselves along the way with it? I see no harm done here. and who says you have to stop doing what you are doing after disclosure happens? seems like his channel would become quite popular after a disclosure event, and then instead of disclosure it becomes research into the subject. it could go many ways, I think you should take a step back, and look at the bigger picture here.

There's a difference between monetizing information and monetizing a claim towards scientific disclosure, which TTSA is doing. Securteam site is merely giving out information in a form he takes his time and effort to disseminate in an entertaining mode. One should expect payment.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Because it doesn't work that way. If you want to make money from something you want it to keep on going. The goal of ufology is supposed to be disclosure.
It's like the health industry those things should not be done for profit. But to achieve a goal.

Correct. Just like cancer research, Ufology is claiming to be using a model that is self defeating. Back when I was a Field Investigator with MUFON, I had the idea of pushing a model that would investigate claims and use the evidence learned in order to either further research, or understand the phenomena out right. A few examples:

Many abducties will claim that there are mulitude visitations both before and after the abduction happens. I used this information to stakeout reported abducties, and attempt to photograph these re-occuring visitations. Members of MUFON refused to see the value in doing these stakeouts. In one case a fellow investigator wanted to right a book about the evidence collected, but never wanted to use the evidence to further the field of research for others.

Taking the time into understanding the value of research from unrelated fields in order to advance the field of Ufology. In a disgusting case, a reoccurring event of Earth Lights were being pushed off as UFOs. Upon researching the area where these "UFO's" were being seen, and taking into account the geology of the area. IT became very clear to me, and anyone wanting to read my report what was going on. The senior investigator on the other hand went on to claim that these lights were in fact UFO's, and pushed that narrative out to the public. So we got UFO reports around Mt St Helens in 2008, instead of photo evidence of Earth Lights occurring due to tectonic pressure creating a piezo-electric effect on the geology.

The senior investigator was able to use this publicity to secure a book deal about these UFOs, instead of using the report I had to further research into the whole "Earth-Light" phenomena (I took my report to a geologist I knew, but after the whole UFO thing was getting pushed in the area she was unable to get any grant money for her research into the situation)

Oh, where was I? Currently the model that many UFO researchers are using has more to do with getting a book deal, or TV show, or other ways of profiting off of it, than it has with furthering the field of research. Just like cancer research is more aimed at treatments than it is at eliminating it. Why have a model that can end the field if your successful.

I always thought UFOlogy should be modeled more like law enforcement (another field where being successful results in not being needed). UFOlogists should be more interested in collecting the information and catologing the data, so that qualified Scientists and Engineers can review and attept to recreate the evidence collected for public review. If these are adanced vehicles and equiptment, then wouldn't it be in the best interest of the public (both industry and the common person) to have this availible to them? It just seems to me though, that too many are looking for a payout, then are looking for the truth.

Monetization cancels credibility.

It's no different from DeWalt sending me a new drill, free of charge, to review on my tool reviews yootoob channel. There will always be a positive bias in my tool reviews because I know if I claim the tool is junk, other tool makers will be reticent to send me anything for fear of being dragged though the mud in a popular public forum.

And that would be the end of my yootoob channel unless I spend my own money for tools, which would give me the freedom to call it as I see it--with no fear of negative consequences. There are very few online reviewers that operate this way because they have to spend their own money to keep creating content.

Once people get a taste of that filthy lucre, it is a *powerful* force that is nearly impossible to resist.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

Just because there’s a profit motive doesn’t mean it’s illegitimate.

Great post and this one sentence I have said many times in the past. The deniers of the world ALWAYS go to this argument to delegitimize anything UFO related if a person makes money from the subject.

Here's an example. If I were to film the best ever high definition video tomorrow of my UFO encounter which contained irrefutable visual proof of ET craft I would put that video up for sale to the highest MSM bidder. I would make as much money as possible before releasing it. Period.

That in no way deligitimizes my encounter nor my visual evidence.

It's literally one of the stupidest arguments I hear in the UFO community.

Sound like Simony, to take pictures and make videos of Yahweh, and a very Simon Peter an Paul of thing to do.

a reply to: EnigmaChaser

Not every UFO channel was demonetized.

The reason SecureTeam was demonetized wasn't because of their monetized content (NOT because they made money from UFO videos), but because of the way they made money by misrepresenting the titles and descriptions of the videos in hopes of getting more people to click them.

The evidence that YoutTube is not against people making money from UFO videos is the fact that there are channels who do make money from UFO videos that YouTube seemingly has no problem with. That's probably because those channels honestly represent the video that someone is about to click on by not giving misleading titles or descriptions.

SecureTeam is all about sensationalism and making a video out to be more than it is just to ensure more people click on that video, at least in my opinion.

I have plenty of books in my collection dating from way before the internet covering all sorts of UFO and alien nonsense that says that the phenomenon was monetised a long time before youtube existed.

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser
The recently posted thread about SecureTeam’s channel being “demonetized” and the subsequent commentary reminded me of a thought I had a bit ago...

Why is it that when someone manages to monetize the UAP/UFO/ET phenomenon, members of the community become irate and consider it blasphemous?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

I say this because I wondered how much farther along we’d be in UFO/UAP/ET research and disclosure if the subject was a multi-billion dollar a year industry in the private sector?

Potentially a lot farther along. More people could dedicate time to the research, the message could get out to more people and draw more people in. Investments in tech for the study of these phenomenon would increase materially. It would no longer be a “hobby” but a career. That’s a lot more time analyzing, researching and displaying the information collected. The remaining societal “stigma” around the subject would likely decrease as well.

Said another way, if there’s no money in something then there’s little investment and less participation. Why? Because it’s a hobby/side interest as people need to pay the bills and have a “real” job.

Just because there’s a profit motive doesn’t mean it’s illegitimate. Most of the things you engage with, keep you alive and fed were created out of a profit motive. So why hate on people who do that with the UAP/UFO/ET subject?

I haven’t figured out how to monetize it in the way I’m thinking about it. But if and when someone does I’ll be on board!

It's a catch-22 but it is a problem. People need to get paid for their time. I just learned MUFON is a pay site and the problem is once people rely on this as their main income how the hell do we know if they are not just generating content to keep subscribers?
The news sources had a measure of oversight and transparency and there has to be a way to be able to determine how legitimate ufo stories are.
I just was a youtube video of LMH explaining that the moon is a surveillance device used to keep watch on us. Her source was "someone told her".
I recently saw a Time magazine reporter do a story on Roswell and completely leave out all details about sticks, balsa, scotch tape, rubber, the fact that Brazle said he took a pile of wreckage home and tried to re-construct it and used words like "kite" and "appeared to be held by balloons". It was just rancher found mysterious foil and right to stories about dead aliens from the 1970's?

The omission of facts was so obvious. This is an attempt to cash in on mythology and the ufo field is so muddied up with this it's impossible to know what to believe. In this case I know the story but now when I read a case I'm not familiar with I don't know what the heck to believe?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

That's EXACTLY how I feel.

My problem isn't the profiting, it's the poor research and investigation. Presumably ST10 makes a pretty good bit of money from his YouTube endeavors, but he's still basically doing armchair research, throwing some graphics in there, commentary a clickbait title and bam, more money.

Stanton Friedman had a bigger impact on the legitimacy of UFOlogy and he didn't have big YouTube money, albiet his money came from lectures, he didn't have millions of online followers ready to comment and support him at will, but he still made a bigger impact.

At the end of the day, ST10 has a huge follower base and could actually make a huge impacting difference for the legitimacy of UFOlogy; but it's easier just to throw together a 10 minute clickbait video embellishing every detail of a story with a SHOCK title.

It's just incredible :/

originally posted by: mirageman
There is no problem with a proper scientific study like the current one studying the lights at Hessdalen in Norway. Proper funding and use of scientific methods to study and report on the topic is perfectly acceptable.

The problem with ufology is that its no more scientific than astrology going by a number of characters. Some who have been in the field years. Stephen Greer - enough said about that man.

Then you have the dearly loved by many and so called investigative journalist Linda Moulton Howe. She happily promotes known hoaxes as real even long after they are debunked.

If you want an example where there is no doubt she is promoting crap here she is with "Herr Groath" on Ancient Aliens promoting the MJ-12 document known as the SOM 1-01 Special Operations Manual.

You will note that at this point in the video that it is dated April 1954

On page 13 of the pdf linked above (numbered as 10 in the manual) it states crashed ET craft should be sent to “Area 51 S-4” in Nevada. But it was an undeveloped portion of Nellis Air Force Base and was not given the name “Area 51” in 1954. In fact it was called the "Ranch" then and wasn't even scouted for use until 1955. So if you are an investigative journalist why are you not spotting this? I am not one and many others aren''t but we can see this for ourselves.

On page 10 of the pdf (numbered 10 inside) it brazenly states possible cover stories for recovery of UFOs. One being "downed satellites". Written in 1954 when there were no satellites in orbit other than the moon. How could you use that as a cover story in 1954?

Again this is not journalism it promoting fakery as fact. There are plenty more examples. Ray Santilli and his alien autopsy comes to mind.

OMG, what are those 2 kooks doing on the History channel?????? This is why ufos are not being taken seriously.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: EnigmaChaser

Why is it that when someone manages to monetize the UAP/UFO/ET phenomenon, members of the community become irate and consider it blasphemous?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

When a UFO, Paranormal, ET, otherworldly phenomenon channel monetizes... the channel instantly becomes less about the truth. The monetization overcomes in the face of content. Suddenly, its more about publication and subscriptions, than it was about reality and realism.

You are negating the validity of the evidence of the channel simply because they make money and that is very narrow minded. A person could have legitimate UFO, paranormal, or ET evidence and if it is unable to be debunked then it should be considered for discussion.

However, I would agree with you that if that same channel continued to release footage or evidence that was no longer legitimate and began to stretch the boundaries of legitimacy then they would be complicit with simply wanting only to make money versus further the research into a particular field.

But the other side of that coin is in fact a channel could continue to release legitimate evidence that is unable to be debunked and if they are able to generate income from that then there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Here is an example of what I mean. Let's say I start a UFO investigation channel. I receive footage from someone. I view the footage and see it is very intriguing. Before I publish that info I want to contact the sender of the footage. Conduct and interview, meet with them to determine if I find them credible, discuss the event in detail, do all the necessary research to uncover all the necessary factors that are available and finally I decide this is something I can publish knowing I performed my due diligence and am presenting what I believe to be factual.

Let's say a subset of the population really likes my format in how I present that information. They find my research to be credible and the way in which I present the information to be informative and nothing more than presenting the facts and they can decide.

Then that subset of the population says, "We want MORE!". Now I enjoy doing what I do. I have an interest in researching interesting topics. Eventually, more viewers send me more footage, etc. Some of it is junk and I toss it to the side. However, some are very interesting stories. So I repeat my process over and over and over and continue to present my findings to the public. Who says, "WE WANT MORE!". Well at some point I realize this is turning into a full time job. I have expenses associated with the cost and time to produce these findings. I need money to do what I do so I monetize my research to help fund the research so I can produce more because bottom line...THAT'S WHAT THE CUSTOMERS WANT. And the customer may or may not choose to fund me. It's THEIR choice.

The above scenario is very real and there are more "good" amateur researchers out there than there are snake oil salesmen. The problem is the good people are usually not that entertaining. Have a very dry process of presenting information and are not very creative. The snake oil salesmen are the ones with flair. They draw in the masses and realize their customer base will consume anything they put out. These are the guys that delegitimize the legitimate people.

In conclusion your conclusion that just because someone monetizes it somehow delegitimizes the research / evidence is patently wrong. But you're right if all they are doing is pumping out junk for general consumption. But then again who are the ones truly causing this? The snake oil salesmen or the people who like to buy snake oil?