Sorry if I'm late to the party on this one: I get that Elizondo is seen to have made many unsubstantiated claims, diminishing his credibility - has he been caught in any direct lies?
The problem is that he hasn't been "caught" in any truths, either.Sorry if I'm late to the party on this one: I get that Elizondo is seen to have made many unsubstantiated claims, diminishing his credibility - has he been caught in any direct lies?
Steven Greenstreet posted this list of Lue Elizondo’s predictions on twitter recently. On another thread, I saw someone describe these type of predictions as LueAnon.
Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs (also known as the "Wizard of Oz" and, during his reign, as "Oz the Great and Terrible" or the "Great and Powerful Oz") is a fictional character in the Land of Oz created by American author L. Frank Baum.
The Wizard is one of the characters in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unseen for most of the novel, he is the ruler of the Land of Oz and highly venerated by his subjects. Believing he is the only man capable of solving their problems, Dorothy and her friends travel to the Emerald City, the capital of Oz, to meet him. Oz is very reluctant to meet them, but eventually each is granted an audience, one by one. In each of these occasions, the Wizard appears in a different form, once as a giant head, once as a beautiful fairy, once as a horrible monster, and once as a ball of fire. When, at last, he grants an audience to all of them at once, he seems to be a disembodied voice.
Eventually, it is revealed that Oz is actually none of these things, but rather an ordinary conman from Omaha, Nebraska, who has been using elaborate magic tricks and props to make himself seem "great and powerful".
Oh.Sorry if I'm late to the party on this one: I get that Elizondo is seen to have made many unsubstantiated claims, diminishing his credibility - has he been caught in any direct lies?
Source: Mr. Luis Elizondo Slide Presentation, MUFON Conference, July 29, 2018. Slide Graphic. Excerpt from the text:
"2007 — Congressional language establishes the ‘Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Application Program’, aka AAWSAP”
Note: This contradicts the now established start date of AAWSAP which was later in 2008, not 2007. The bid solicitation was not published until August of 2008 and not awarded to anyone until September of 2008. To date, there is not a single document that shows anything happened with AAWSAP in 2007.
It's a promise of salvation, building up unfounded hope that brings their faction support.
He looks to have gone full woo-mode now.
- Imagine a future where we no longer need to speculate about our place in the cosmos.
- The release of info on NHI has the potential to unite humanity, regardless of the ontological shock that would ensue.
- [Disclosure] will involve the releasing of info in a controlled and planned manner.
- This is a new era of spiritual awakening.
- We are in a paradigm shift with the power in our hands to transform our world.
- We are working towards a more enlightened and interconnected world.
From what I can see we had a bunch of people involved in this conference who claim to have first or second knowledge about UAP retrievals, and/or actually worked for government teams investigating UAPs. You'd think all the best knowledge we have about UAP retrievals was in that room or a phone call away but nobody thought it was a good idea to actually catalog and produce the ultimate list of what needs to be disclosed.
Steven Macon Greer (June 28, 1955) is an American ufologist and retired physician who founded the Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence (CSETI) and the Disclosure Project, which seeks the disclosure of alleged classified UFO information.
See also:Steven Greer claims to have been one of the people who met with Grusch and provided him info about facilities and operations
Spinning back around here since the prior discussion was hosted off it and the disclosure point. So, in connection to my prior posts, we know Elizondo, Stratton
Yes actually, one of the old networked group members actually did studies specifically surrounding this. Kit Green. Kit was connected with that old "The Aviary" group that basically had the same odd "disclosure" aims - they were the kings of information, and since they know better than everyone, it is their right and need to drip disclosure to avert some "catastrophic" incident from broad, immediate disclosure, including from their own frame the allowance of manipulating the public to achieve this aim.I wonder if anyone is thinking through the potential of disclosure to further divide humanity, the possibility that knowledge of NHIs will make our place in the cosmos less certain, possibility that disclosure would lead to a marked DECREASE in spiritual beliefs or whether the "ability to transform our world" is a good or bad thing. The assumption that if we only knew who was piloting UFOs, all would be kumbaya and flowers and butterflies seems naive...
The lack of anything to disclose would obviate the need to think more deeply about it, never mind...
I believe the wording selection there is using hypothesis generation in the intelligence analysis sense. Granted we don't know the backend, I'd presume they're referencing something like using Analysis of Competing Hypothesis in relation to very specific details based off data being reactively interacted with. Or in shorter terms probably something like they're using pre-existing and accessible data to create and weight hypothesis to use in presentation to back their efforts (towards the government).I was going to say "as long as they don't go forwards to stage 2 and onwards before they've completed stage 1 - 'Demonstrate Existence' - then I'd be somewhat pacified". However, I then noticed that their "analytical approach" was "hypothesis generation".
They're going to "demonstrate existence" by "hypothesis generation"?
neither the old network nor the new network has ever "drip-fed" anything worthwhile.We lack depth of info about the new networked group (at least Elizondo, Stratton, Mellon, and Nell) but they slowly appear to be taking on a very similar view and even presenting it insanely similarly, for example the whole drip feeding disclosure to avert a "catastrophic disclosure".
Not saying they have, just that they're presenting similar views in that regard of what they think they're doing.neither the old network nor the new network has ever "drip-fed" anything worthwhile.
it seems to be a rationalisation for the inability to do what actual whistleblowers do, and that is to get the information published ASAP.
(They have no information.)
if I were to inoculate a population, I would feed it the truth, but begin by using untrustworthy sources, and then escalate the level of trust.
That's bound to work better than to continously change the story.
The drip-feed approach is better if you want to build support for a fake narrative, as it is more immune to scrutiny.