Rare things that have been documented much better than UFOs

[yoshy]

I've seen the UAP live in daylight; I have no doubt in my heart...
These ultra-advanced (shape-shifting) machines exist.
And when it finally happens, you usually have very little time to react.
You probably just choose to watch so you don't miss anything !!

And who walks around with expensive camera equipment 24/7, ready to photograph or film a UFO sighting?
It always happens when you least expect it.
But it happens...

Welcome to the forum! This forum invites people to share their experiences, but you just have to find the thread for that or start a new one. And don't take skepticism as an insult. That's just the default here . I think UFOs and Aliens (the sub forum where this thread is) is the right place to make a new post if you like

 

[Fin]

And who walks around with expensive camera equipment 24/7, ready to photograph or film a UFO sighting?

Billions of people carry smartphones with them that can take high-resolution photographs and video, with sophisticated autofocus, image stabilisation, low-light capabilities and, on some models, powerful zoom.

Compared with the consumer photography equipment available in the 1990s when I was a kid, modern smartphones are astonishingly capable and would easily compete with some of the more expensive camera equipment a relatively small number of people could afford & carry around with them even just 20 years ago.

But to more directly answer your question: Today, many millions of people have expensive smartphones with excellent cameras which would put even seriously expensive 90's cameras to shame. They are more "ready" than in previous decades where you'd need to take the time to attach your telephoto lens, tripod etc. We've been more ready and well equipped than ever, but still nobody's ever got a good photo of an unambiguous UFO.

Then we have "Skywatcher" who had seriously expensive equipment, AND tripods, and even psionic summoners! And STILL all we got was blurry videos of distant birds and balloons

 

[GM4AJK]

They are more "ready" than in previous decades

And to add to this, I've seen many videos of "startling events" on the internet that not only capture the "startling event" but often show multiple other people filming the same "startling event" in the foreground.

And STILL all we got was blurry videos of distant birds and balloons

... and satellites, mostly Starlink these days, but the ISS still pops up decades after it was launched.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Regarding "disclosure" and the PURSUE project: I was a bit skeptical on the whole "scraping the bottom of the barrel" hypothesis, but the last tranche of UAP documents are all text and renderings, no videos, no photos, nothing.
Of course we can't completely be certain but, scraping the bottom of the barrel much?

 

[Todd Feinman]

Regarding "disclosure" and the PURSUE project: I was a bit skeptical on the whole "scraping the bottom of the barrel" hypothesis, but the last tranche of UAP documents are all text and renderings, no videos, no photos, nothing.
Of course we can't completely be certain but, scraping the bottom of the barrel much?

I never thought they would release anything of substance; why would they?

 

[JJB]

I never thought they would release anything of substance; why would they?

I never believed for a second that there was anything to disclose in the first place, at least not anything involving extraterrestrials. There are certainly things worth disclosing and talking about military sightings, sensor data and national security, but that's a long way from evidence of alien visitation.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I never believed for a second that there was anything to disclose in the first place, at least not anything involving extraterrestrials. There are certainly things worth disclosing and talking about military sightings, sensor data and national security, but that's a long way from evidence of alien visitation.

Imagine if there was something something to disclose, and there were high resolution images and sensor data that would prove it, and it was far more advanced than anything we knew of and was not a visionary or fictitious phenomenon that they had been keeping secret to study. Would they suddenly do a 180° and release everything because it was the ethical thing to do? Epstein?
Anyway, there's this bridge, in Brooklyn, I'd like to tell you something special about…

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I never thought they were gonna release 4K videos of detailed flying saucers.
I just thought they wouldn't end up without any videos even before the 10th release.

 

[JJB]

Imagine if there was something something to disclose, and there were high resolution images and sensor data that would prove it, and it was far more advanced than anything we knew of and was not a visionary or fictitious phenomenon that they had been keeping secret to study. Would they suddenly do a 180° and release everything because it was the ethical thing to do? Epstein?
Anyway, there's this bridge, in Brooklyn, I'd like to tell you something special about…

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the very thing it needs to establish: that the government possesses high-resolution images and sensor data proving extraterrestrial technology exists. Where is that evidence?

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place. Epstein has nothing to do with it, either. Government secrecy and institutional misconduct are real, but they don't establish an extraterrestrial cover-up.

And the bridge punchline is amusing, but implying that anyone who disagrees with you is gullible isn't evidence. Show me the data, not another hypothetical about what the data might reveal.

 

[Mauro]

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place.

J. K. Rowling did exactly that (in the Harry Potter world, with wizards of course, not aliens).

 

[JMartJr]

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place. Epstein has nothing to do with it, either. Government secrecy and institutional misconduct are real, but they don't establish an extraterrestrial cover-up.

Bear in mind, too, that EVERY government would have to also be hiding all THEIR proof (or good evidence,) as would every non-governmental group that ever came across any. "Epstein files" is not a relevant to point for most of those, nor any other individual or organizationally specific motive or excuse.

 

[Todd Feinman]

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the very thing it needs to establish: that the government possesses high-resolution images and sensor data proving extraterrestrial technology exists. Where is that evidence?

Everyone can construct an elaborate hypothetical about what the government might hide if aliens were real, but that doesn't demonstrate that such evidence exists in the first place. Epstein has nothing to do with it, either. Government secrecy and institutional misconduct are real, but they don't establish an extraterrestrial cover-up.

And the bridge punchline is amusing, but implying that anyone who disagrees with you is gullible isn't evidence. Show me the data, not another hypothetical about what the data might reveal.

It was just a hypothetical. I understand your stance; it makes sense.
I actually think things would play out much as they are if there was a reality to the UFO phenomenon. I realize that is not proof for skeptics.

 

[Mendel]

J. K. Rowling did exactly that (in the Harry Potter world, with wizards of course, not aliens).

And videos of platform 7½ would abound on Tiktok nowadays.

 

[Fin]

There is plenty of unambiguous evidence, but unfortunately its unambiguous evidence that everyone who's pushing for Disclosure who thinks they have good photo/video evidence is actually just terrible at video & photo analysis.

- From Jay Stratton being completely incapable of identifying bokeh, then doubling down long after its been proven to be bokeh,
- to Sarah Gamm being unable to identify a bird (while hanging out with Chris Bledsoe, no less),
- Lue Elizondo peddling easily debunkable photos of a reflection of a chandelier and.. some irrigation fields. etc..
- Skywatcher: birds and balloons
- Marik VR, prattling on for YEARS about the wholly unimpressive Gimbal video, which demonstrates absolutely nothing that allows us to rule out it being a distant aircraft with rotating lens flare/glare
- Eric Burlison getting excited about a UFO being shot at in 2024 by a Reaper drone: again, nothing overtly anomalous. A blurry blob flying in a straight line being hit by a missile
- Jeremy Corbell's eyes widened (as usual) as he breathlessly told us about a huge black triangle UFO (29 Palms) which is quite obviously just some flares. To be fair, he later partially walked that one back in the face of significant pushback & proof it was just flares, then he went quiet on it altogether. Among other revelatory non-revelations he also spent much energy trying to convince us that an obvious bunch of balloons floating along harmlessly, was actually a jellyfish UAP.

The list goes on, and on, but to summarise, there is an undeniable & very well established pattern: People from within the government & those, like Jeremy, who like to help spread their claims, have established & consistently fuelled an undeniable pattern of behaviour: They confidently present UFO videos and photos, often hyping them up before the big reveal, and in ALL cases their confidence has later been unequivocally proven to be stronger than the evidence actually justified.

Those of us who take some UFO witnesses seriously (I am one of them, being a BT witness and someone who's animated witness cases in great detail for them) do so because we find the PATTERNS compelling. We see a consistent pattern of, for example, black triangle witnesses describing eerily similar things: very low-flying unambiguous triangle-shaped craft haunting roadsides, flying in close proximity to the witnesses, in roughly the same way across multiple continents. We find it hard to ignore those patterns. But so many people invested in the whole UFO Disclosure subject seem to be completely immune to acknowledging one of the most consistent PATTERNS about actual UFO evidence, whether it's presented by civilians or government employees: Its all crap. Its nearly always completely debunkable, and when its not, that's because its a blurry blob in the distance, in the low information zone, where there's just not enough data to either rule out a flying saucer or a balloon, so why would we assume it's a flying saucer? No photo or video, ever presented, is unambiguously anomalous. No photo or video ever comes close to actually & clearly being an unambiguous black triangle hovering by a roadside, or above an air force hangar. In fact, ALL of the most unambiguous UFO videos & photos are hoaxes! And Burlison falls for those too!! (See the Buga Sphere).

With this pattern in mind, all we have left to grasp onto is claims where we hear about great evidence, but don't get to see it, like that of Chris Mellon, from his interview with James Fox. A brief reminder, accurately summarized for me by ChatGPT:

In the transcript of James Fox's appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience (#1976, 26 April 2023), Fox says:

"Christopher Mellon said that there's very high-resolution photographs."

Fox then recounts their conversation:

"I was like, well, how good are the photographs? [...] He goes, James. 4K? Just think about as good as you can imagine of craft."

Fox says Mellon was referring to satellite data. He also says he spoke to five other people who had access to, or were involved with, the alleged programme, and that they confirmed the claims.

Now, given the pattern I've already outlined - that every single one of these sorts of claims result in disappointment when we actually get to see the hyped video or photo - what are the chances that Mellon & co. are also yet another example of people being terrible at analysing ufo videos & photos? They saw something they thought was a 4K photo of a flying saucer, but actually it was akin to Elizondo's irrigation fields. I think at this point, after all that we've seen, its folly to argue that, oh, in that particular case, the evidence actually was completely unambiguous and un-debunkable. What's most likely, given the well established, unambiguous pattern, is that its just another misidentification by yet another person who's just not well-versed enough in analysing ufo imagery.

 

[JJB]

Bear in mind, too, that EVERY government would have to also be hiding all THEIR proof (or good evidence,) as would every non-governmental group that ever came across any. "Epstein files" is not a relevant to point for most of those, nor any other individual or organizationally specific motive or excuse.

I agree. I keep hearing people claim that UFO disclosure is some kind of distraction from what's really going on. But a distraction from what, exactly? Which specific legislation or political decisions have been pushed through unnoticed because of UFO coverage? And what evidence shows that disclosure is deliberately orchestrated for that purpose?

People can follow multiple stories simultaneously, and releasing documents doesn't somehow prevent anyone from paying attention to economic or social issues.

The media pushes whatever catches eyeballs, and UFOs are perfect clickbait. That doesn't mean there's some grand plan behind it, it means people are interested in sensational stories.

Sure, a few UFO people might get distracted by the latest disclosure headlines, but that hardly amounts to a successful strategy for distracting the general public. Most people have far more immediate concerns. I know I do.

 

[NorCal Dave]

I actually think things would play out much as they are if there was a reality to the UFO phenomenon. I realize that is not proof for skeptics.

But that really depends on exactly what "the UFO phenomenon" is. What you saw could be something other-worldly, but have nothing to do with the idea that the government has dozens of crashed UFO, alien bodies and is engaged in a 70 year reverse engineering program of said UFOs. Even on a smaller scale, if the 5 lights you saw are real other world somethings, what is the government going to have besides some high resolution video of 5 lights.

The entire government cover-up and disclosure trope is built upon a mythos that has grown over decades. I've been working on a write up going through old stuff to see where some of these claims originate. The origins are often very mundane or of dubious quality. IF aliens are checking in on Earth and IF they are occasionally seen or spotted, something like what you described is more likely than dozens of crashed UFOs or the "Nordic" aliens meeting Eisenhower only to be rebuffed so the US could instead sign a treaty with the "Reptilian" aliens who are battling the "Grey" aliens. This is the kind of nonsense the modern "disclosure" movement is based on.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I do think that in particular agencies in the US government and military do know more about UFOs than is admitted and probably have better evidence. I think a lot of nonsense and disinformation over the years has been used as a smokescreen.

 

[Fin]

IF aliens are checking in on Earth and IF they are occasionally seen or spotted, something like what you described is more likely than dozens of crashed UFOs or the "Nordic" aliens meeting Eisenhower only to be rebuffed so the US could instead sign a treaty with the "Reptilian" aliens who are battling the "Grey" aliens.

Agreed. I used to argue that the classic skeptical mantra of "UFO's would be too technologically advanced to crash" might be rendered largely redundant if, rather than just a few UFOs visiting per year, there were instead thousands. i.e. the more that are coming the more likely eventually a few might crash.

The problem with that argument is it begs the question of why, if many UFOs are visiting and some are crashing, do they always seem to crash in just the right secluded spot that the (usually American) government always gets there first and manages to cover it all up? Why do they never crash just outside London? The more crash stories one buys (and the less rare it therefore is), the more UFOs must be visiting, the more likely it is they'd eventually crash somewhere that makes it impossible to cover up.

The book "MAJIC EYES ONLY: Earth's Encounters with Extraterrestrial Technology", collects no less than 104 reported UFO crashes! They are not independently verified. The book itself acknowledges that the cases vary in the strength of their evidence. No irrigation circles were harmed during the writing of the book.

 

[JMartJr]

I do think that in particular agencies in the US government and military do know more about UFOs than is admitted and probably have better evidence.

Which is fine to believe, but would be even fine if there was evidence to support it.

I think a lot of nonsense and disinformation over the years has been used as a smokescreen.

I tend to agree if we can count things like the original crashed saucer statement following the loss if the Project Mogul balloon. But I note that this can be the case even in the total absence of actual "real UFOS." Smokescreens need not imply an actual fire behind it all!

 

[Ann K]

I never thought they would release anything of substance; why would they?

I never thought they'd release anything of substance, because I don't think there's any chance that they HAVE anything of substance*.

* unless they redefine "substance" completely to include the more creative of hoaxes.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

Those of us who take some UFO witnesses seriously (I am one of them, being a BT witness and someone who's animated witness cases in great detail for them) do so because we find the PATTERNS compelling.

I'm one of those people as well, but at the same time it's very difficult to convey my idea of a pattern to those who completely deny the possibility that there could be anything interesting beneath the UAP issue.
I don't even think it's just a matter of culture and modern mythologies; there are very strange and almost improbable connections between completely different cases.
I tend to think about this more in terms of psychological archetypes rather than real, physical alien entities or advanced nuts-and-bolts craft.
And if many of the UFO elements are related to perception and neuropsychology, then I have even stronger reasons to believe that governments could actually have no more real info about UFOs than the general public.

 

[JMartJr]

...I don't even think it's just a matter of culture and modern mythologies; there are very strange and almost improbable connections between completely different cases.
I tend to think about this more in terms of psychological archetypes rather than real, physical alien entities or advanced nuts-and-bolts craft.

Particularly in the modern era, in the world of instant cheap mass communication networks, I also suspect interesting bits from one report are going to get picked up and included in later reports, either intentionally for hoaxes or subconsciously for sincere but inaccurate reports.

 

[MapperGuy]

the US government and military do know more about UFOs

I would say that is probably true. But what they "know" is that with better tools and better techniques than are available to the majority of people they don't see anything. No aliens, no flying saucers, nothing. But how do they prove a negative? Without revealing all of those tools and techniques? They can't. So they just ignore the business as much as possible and wait for interest to wain.

 

[JJB]

I would say that is probably true. But what they "know" is that with better tools and better techniques than are available to the majority of people they don't see anything. No aliens, no flying saucers, nothing. But how do they prove a negative? Without revealing all of those tools and techniques? They can't. So they just ignore the business as much as possible and wait for interest to wain.

I suspect the biggest problem for the UFO community is that the people with the best tools and access to the most relevant data have yet to produce anything that settles the question. Instead, we keep getting told that the real evidence exists somewhere behind another layer of secrecy.

After decades of this, you have to wonder whether the mystery is being sustained more by what people imagine is being hidden than by anything that has actually been found.

 

[Mendel]

I would say that is probably true. But what they "know" is that with better tools and better techniques than are available to the majority of people they don't see anything. No aliens, no flying saucers, nothing. But how do they prove a negative? Without revealing all of those tools and techniques? They can't. So they just ignore the business as much as possible and wait for interest to wane.

I disagree.
AARO has told us that the government has no evidence of UFOs. We know.

The only people who know less are the ones who don't believe them.
Kinda like how moon landing deniers know less about the moon landings than we do.

There is no secret government knowledge with regard to UFOs.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

I disagree.
AARO has told us that the government has no evidence of UFOs. We know.

The only people who know less are the ones who don't believe them.
Kinda like how moon landing deniers know less about the moon landings than we do.

There is no secret government knowledge with regard to UFOs.

AARO has also never said that there was nothing to work on, nothing to analyse or that the issue itself is meaningless.
Tim Phillips himself said during the interview with Mick West that there were interesting cases, but that he obviously couldn't give any details.
Now, "interesting" can mean many different things, of which "aliens" is the less probable, and I have no idea of what exactly he could mean, but same thing with Kosloski, I don't know if Kirkpatrick said anything along those lines, but I still consider this significant.
They might know a bit more than we do on specific cases, that's all I'm implying, but at the same time I wouldn't bet any money on them holding any alien life truths.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I suspect the biggest problem for the UFO community is that the people with the best tools and access to the most relevant data have yet to produce anything that settles the question. Instead, we keep getting told that the real evidence exists somewhere behind another layer of secrecy.

After decades of this, you have to wonder whether the mystery is being sustained more by what people imagine is being hidden than by anything that has actually been found.

For a while I've maintained that government officials who have UFO knowledge should not go public unless they had information / data that would prove the phenomenon is real, so I agree.

 

[JJB]

For a while I've maintained that government officials who have UFO knowledge should not go public unless they had information / data that would prove the phenomenon is real, so I agree.

I keep asking myself why these people keep at it, and the the simplest explanation is that the UFO subject rewards people for talking about it, whether or not they have anything substantial to reveal.

Attention, status, money, political influence and the feeling of being an insider are all powerful incentives. Some may genuinely believe what they're saying; others may be exaggerating what they know. We can't know each person's motivation without evidence, but we don't need to assume a coordinated cover-up to explain the behaviour.

The real question is why anyone should believe these people have extraordinary insight or knowledge when they repeatedly fail to produce extraordinary evidence.

Or maybe the bigger question is why we keep listening.

We love a good mystery, we want to believe there's something extraordinary behind it all, and we're willing to keep eating up these stories even when the promised evidence never materializes.

The only thing I do know is that as long as there's an audience hungry for the next revelation, there will always be storytellers willing to provide one.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I keep asking myself why these people keep at it, and the the simplest explanation is that the UFO subject rewards people for talking about it, whether or not they have anything substantial to reveal.

Attention, status, money, political influence and the feeling of being an insider are all powerful incentives. Some may genuinely believe what they're saying; others may be exaggerating what they know. We can't know each person's motivation without evidence, but we don't need to assume a coordinated cover-up to explain the behaviour.

The real question is why anyone should believe these people have extraordinary insight or knowledge when they repeatedly fail to produce extraordinary evidence.

Or maybe the bigger question is why we keep listening.

We love a good mystery, we want to believe there's something extraordinary behind it all, and we're willing to keep eating up these stories even when the promised evidence never materializes.

The only thing I do know is that as long as there's an audience hungry for the next revelation, there will always be storytellers willing to provide one.

I think you are right when you suggest we don't know the motivations of each one; it could be an alloy of the money and attention along with some exposure to something real.

I don't know how you folks who have never seen something you would consider truly anomalous can tolerate it! I think, and Fin too, that we have seen anomalous things, and while I can't speak for him, he also seems sick of it.

After having seen what I have, I'm allergic to sci-fi stuff, don't peruse the tranches, waiting for others to go through and pick out the interesting bits, haven't read any of the new books (though I did get them through Audible, haven't listened yet). Seeing those things was kind of like being cut to the bone. There always be a scar. I've debated with myself about whether or not I'd want to see these things again, and I vacillate.

When Elizondo came out in the NYT article, I was hoping that would be it, no more arguing. But it didn't happen. And now everything is a big mess.

 

[Andreas]

But how do they prove a negative? Without revealing all of those tools and techniques?

Well, I don't think any military is particularly interested in proving or disproving alien visitations. Why would they be? But things ARE flying around in our airspace that are difficult to identify. And it IS important to get better at identifying this clutter. It's crucial for detecting potential threats and distinguishing them from ordinary birds and balloons. Obviously, the military knows much more about this than the general public, and it's kinda strange to demand that the military disclose details about classified platforms and systems just because a bunch of people believe in alien visitations. And this has nothing to do with the military "knowing more about aliens". The latter is often interpreted as the government possessing information about alien spacecraft, alien lifeforms, and so on. I'm sure there are thousands of FLIR videos showing strange stuff, but I just don't see what any of this has to do with alien disclosure. The recent disclosure seems to be more about disclosing secret military systems than anything else

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'm sure there are thousands of FLIR videos showing strange stuff, but I just don't see what any of this has to do with alien disclosure. The recent disclosure seems to be more about disclosing secret military systems than anything else

I think it's the flight characteristics reported by witnesses, and perhaps data / footage that might be classified (ways and means).
And the historicity of similar reports.

 

[Andreas]

I think it's the flight characteristics reported by witnesses, and perhaps data / footage that might be classified (ways and means).
And the historicity of similar reports.

I think a main problem for the military is that the released videos often reveal how mundane objects are misidentified due to parallax, low resolution, and other factors that most people would expect military personnel to be familiar with. This could raise questions about how capable military personnel are of identifying potential threats. I'm sure their superiors aren't pleased when the public (and foreign intelligence agencies) discover that geese, balloons, and sensor artifacts are being mistaken for mysterious, high-tech craft.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I think a main problem for the military is that the released videos often reveal how mundane objects are misidentified due to parallax, low resolution, and other factors that most people would expect military personnel to be familiar with. This could raise questions about how capable military personnel are of identifying potential threats. I'm sure their superiors aren't pleased when the public (and foreign intelligence agencies) discover that geese, balloons, and sensor artifacts are being mistaken for mysterious, high-tech craft.

That's just the kind of junk I'd expect them to release; things that look strange at first glance and get flagged and stuck into a folder to review later, but it's clear they are mundane, and they release them anyway.
If they are redacting bits of data in released junk, there's zero chance of them releasing anything truly interesting if they have it.
If I'm playing poker, I'm not going to get rid of my good cards because another player asks me to.

 

[Fin]

I keep asking myself why these people keep at it, and the the simplest explanation is that the UFO subject rewards people for talking about it, whether or not they have anything substantial to reveal.

It was recently revealed that David Grusch is C.O.O. of a company called StarDustX Materials, Inc., which investigative journalist Ben Schreckinger reported on 17 September 2026 through his publication, PARADIGM. The company is associated with people who have publicly advocated investigating alleged UFO technology.

Dr Garry Nolan and Karl Nell are co-founders.

StarDustX was incorporated in 2024. Nell has described it as a venture-capital-backed advanced-materials startup focused on metamaterial analysis and design. He has indicated that it has received millions of dollars in investment.

I heard about this on a podcast but ChatGPT summarised it for me, paraphrased above. More at this link:

https://chatgpt.com/share/6ade134a-4c6c-83eb-be4c-650c862bb021?ogimg=plain

It reflects what I've been suspicious of for quite some time now: the Disclosure push since 2017 is attracting "whales", i.e. people with lots of money, who are likely new to the subject and/or noob to the subject, in that they believe Disclosure-pushers claims about things like bokeh actually being pyramidal anomalous UAP. These whales want to help with Disclosure and are well placed to capitalise on areas in which it can create a profit for them, hence new companies/start-ups which can now pay the likes of Jake Barber. Skywatcher was co-founded by Alex Klokus of Salt Conference fame.

 

[Ann K]

I think it's the flight characteristics reported by witnesses, and perhaps data / footage that might be classified (ways and means).
And the historicity of similar reports.

I'm not sure that either "historicity" or eyewitness reports belong on our list of things that can be studied. If witnesses have described things in the past, then that's all we have. There is no further information to be had. And if later conversations with witnesses reveal new information, there is no way to distinguish fresh memories from sheer embroidery of the tale.

 

[Todd Feinman]

I'm not sure that either "historicity" or eyewitness reports belong on our list of things that can be studied. If witnesses have described things in the past, then that's all we have. There is no further information to be had. And if later conversations with witnesses reveal new information, there is no way to distinguish fresh memories from sheer embroidery of the tale.

I was just referring to what Andreas said about why people think this is "disclosure".
I agree you cannot test things about historical reports, only look for similarities and patterns in the reports.

 

[Todd Feinman]

It reflects what I've been suspicious of for quite some time now: the Disclosure push since 2017 is attracting "whales", i.e. people with lots of money, who are likely new to the subject and/or noob to the subject, in that they believe Disclosure-pushers claims about things like bokeh actually being pyramidal anomalous UAP. These whales want to help with Disclosure and are well placed to capitalise on areas in which it can create a profit for them, hence new companies/start-ups which can now pay the likes of Jake Barber. Skywatcher was co-founded by Alex Klokus of Salt Conference fame.

Do you think anything will come of it? Or is it a big scam? How does all of this activity fit in with how you understand things from your personal experience?