The word you were looking for is: "Coiffed". Hair carefully arranged in an attractive style.
I have read far too many old books... Wherein the color of every persons eyes are noted by the narrator, and the details of their hairstyle.
TIME: Trump Says Government Will Declassify Alien Files
- Thread starter Montauk
- Start date
I have read far too many old books... Wherein the color of every persons eyes are noted by the narrator, and the details of their hairstyle.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Let the hedging begin! Trump may have said he'll direct government agencies to release UFO files, but what about all those dastardly defense contractors that really have the UFOs? Some Facebook UFO blogger quoted our old friend RC about how disclosure doesn't really mean disclosure:
Regardless of what the government ends up releasing, or more accurately, not releasing, RC and the rest of the UFO-media posse can keep the ball rolling speculating and fantasizing about what Lockheed is hiding.
My bad! I knew what I meant and I think most people figured it out.
https://www.facebook.com/official.cristina.gomezExternal Quote:
Regardless of what the government ends up releasing, or more accurately, not releasing, RC and the rest of the UFO-media posse can keep the ball rolling speculating and fantasizing about what Lockheed is hiding.
My bad! I knew what I meant and I think most people figured it out.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
So now Lockheed is hiding UFOs from the government? How would they even acquire them, without leaving a mile wide trail in the government bureaucracy?
When the government gives a company TS/SCI level material it requires the company to already have a SCIF to store or work on it in. A facility is only a SCIF if it has been accredited as such by the government (lots of mandatory requirements). SCIF's have to be periodically inspected and re-certified, again by the government. So the location of any facility where such material is located is known about by the government. If the company wants to shut down a SCIF they have to again work with the accrediting office, who will make sure all classified material in it is destroyed or returned to the government. SCIF's don't just get lost.
So any TS/SCI level material Lockheed was given would have, initially, been moved to a SCIF, whose location was know to the government. So was it later declassified? Lockheed can't just declare it unclassified, the originating government office would have to do that. They would have made a record of that fact, because both the company and the government would want to cover their backsides in case of future questions about what happened to that classified stuff. Disposing of classified material creates paper trails.
john.phil
Senior Member.
The original post detailing the issue also informed the server was up and running again. No files were permanently lost:
Source: https://twitter.com/theblackvault/status/2024900829564883194
Source: https://twitter.com/theblackvault/status/2025284894084260324
External Quote:
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
i think you should also bold "I'm not sure when exactly this happened."
Feb 23:
Article: Bottom line, I truly don't suspect foul play, but the timing is truly bizarre
john.phil
Senior Member.
Done, also included his post from the day before where he informed there was an outage.
deirdre
Senior Member
awesome! so Feb 20 at 12:30 pm New York time.
new news:
Article: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the Pentagon is "working" on identifying and releasing government files related to UFOs and extraterrestrial life following President Donald Trump's directive.
"We've got our people working on it right now," Hegseth said Monday [Feb 23], when asked by a reporter if he was prepared to potentially declassify such information. "I don't want to oversell how much time it will take, but we're digging in."
...
Trump announced on Feb. 19 [8:13 pm New York time] that he is instructing federal agencies to begin releasing government files.
Rick Robson
Active Member
john.phil
Senior Member.
"Dog whistling" is a reference to coded message that seems unremarkable to the general public but has a specific meaning for a targeted audience. Similar to the expression "Entendedores entenderão".
As some who works with an I.T. team, it would be surprising if this guy didn't crash his website every so often.
Rick Robson
Active Member
I'd already heard that jargon, I'm rather still wondering to whom would it apply on that John's sentence. Whether there's a sort of "threatening act" suspicion implied there or not, I find obvious it can't be completely ruled out by the general public (or at least by those with a.basic level of awareness on these kind of incidents.
Rick Robson
Active Member
Did you want to say "every so seldom?
I'm just asking, you know English is not my mother language.
john.phil
Senior Member.
Greenewald's target audience is a coalition of the suspicious, or as they might see themselves: the "David vs Goliath" people, where Goliath is the US government or a branch of the government. That would include deep state conspiracists, intelligence watchdogs, transparency hardliners, OSINT partisans, the UFO community...His remark was exactly what his community would feed on: fear of Goliath coming for them.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Use a good dictionary, or a web search like https://www.google.com/search?q="every+so+often"+meaning
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/every-so-often
External Quote:
Rick Robson
Active Member
Thanks but I don't need it, since I can realise that your choice of words "sometimes but not often" is not applicable to John's only incident, as reported by himself.
Rick Robson
Active Member
Let me get this straight? What John Greenewald Jr.'s "community" are you talking about? Please would you expand also on your claim about a "coalition of the suspicious"? Because all of this is news to me, AFAIK he's only known as being today one of the most experts on the procedures involving FOIA requests.
Mendel
Senior Member.
1) You did not research your claim very well. For example:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/thegovernmentsecrets/posts/after-a-long-day-of-an-outage-i-am-now-officially-i-hope-back-online-againi-hope/3316685535218376/
2)
https://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar/conditional-sentencesExternal Quote:
@jdog's use of grammar indicates that he thinks it's likely that Greenewald's website crashes now and again. That was a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact.
As an ESL speaker, I'm in a learning mindset when I examine a native speaker's use of language.
Rick Robson
Active Member
Well then, had that instance not been only the issue with his site -- shutdown during that day, you would have identified contradictions in this John's statement: "It is unclear why, and I've never seen this in the history running web servers for The Black Vault."
Now would you please spare me of your Conditional Sentence explanations? They are completely irrelevant and unnecessary to this discussion. Thank you.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
There is no contradiction.
John says he hasn't seen this type of failure before, but @jdog referred to a less specific "crash his website". The older outage was presumably of a different kind than the new outage.
I think nitpicking someone's choice of words in public is "completely irrelevant and unnecessary to this discussion", too, but here we are.
Rick Robson
Active Member
Would you please refer to my edited post instead?
Mendel
Senior Member.
Why did you edit your post?
Rick Robson
Active Member
This curiosity has just sprung to mind again ha ha! , yea it also remains unaddressed.
Mendel
Senior Member.
What is there to address?
Every time the DoD can't find something that Greenewald requests, he apparently thinks they're hiding something, instead of the files/emails/whatever getting lost or thrown away.
john.phil
Senior Member.
His community can be found on Reddit, X, Facebook, Discord, YouTube, Instagram and other platforms. "Coalition of the suspicious" is a reference to how his community, albeit heterogeneous, is united against a common phantom enemy.
For instance, they just created a funding group for the Black Vault and for its independent preservation, after the website outage was blamed on government institutions and bad actors -> https://x.com/i/communities/2026435827820044641
Here is a small snapshot:
About him just being a neutral FOIA expert, if you visit https://www.youtube.com/@TheBlackVaultOriginals , you can check what kind of videos he publishes, and then if you read the comments section, you can also see a sample of his target audience there. He also holds live Q&A sessions on YouTube, where you can see from the questions his audience asks, which group they represent, the donations they are making, and the conversations and comments in the chat window.
For instance, in one of his latest videos, he opens the video by addressing his audience in the following way, about how a document was written:
source: "The UAP Disclosure Act: The Problem With Eminent Domain" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HgiR9kawcYExternal Quote:
From that statement, he acknowledges he's aware that part of his audience does not appreciate him veering towards conspiracies, whilst the other part has him as one of them.
Here are snapshots of the latest videos on his youtube channel, check the video titles:
In this post, he teases his UFO audience by implying the Navy must have something else to hide beyond the usual weapons capabilities classification, hinting at "UAP footage might reveal alien visitation" conspiracy:
On Facebook, the very description of the discussion group tells you already which audience is in there, and hints at what the comments section looks like. "The Black Vault - UFOs, Conspiracies, Cover-Ups and Controversies" https://www.facebook.com/groups/TheBlackVault/
Check some of the material the community shares below:
On Discord, you can see the list of channels associated with the server, among which there are the usual content his community engages with: #ufo-chat, #conspiracy and #forteana. discord.com/invite/2RM4D7A2B3
Last edited:
Rick Robson
Active Member
As I expected, your supposed evidences here don't support your allegations about John Greenewald Jr., et all, therefore I quote you again as a last opportunity to clarify what you really meant by those allegations of yours that I previously highlighted in quotation marks.
I see that I would have spared you from the job of describing his platforms with links and all that, as you should know I'm an old subscriber to his YT podcast and know quite a lot of his brilliant contribution and support on the submission of FOIA requests.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
No, that's a thing we are supposed to do here, though I admit I sometimes do not do as thorough a job as I should. But we are supposed to source our claims by direct quotation and links, and avoid paraphrases.
Similar threads
