New York Times article on an F16's encounter with a 40 ft long UFO

[Dekalb_Blues]

[ . . . ]

DB, do you believe the video here is fake?  If so, why?  Just curious as I Want To Believe heh.

C_A, if you'll notice I pointed out that though fakery is easy and prevalent in all kinds of spook tradecraft*, "who said (not moi!) it [i.e., the
video in question] isn't indeed legit, and a valid indicator of the superior technology of the target vehicle (if material craft it be), and the de facto
recognition of this to some extent at least by a certain faction of the U.S. Government?" In other words, in this particular case the Good Guys
very tellingly used a corrupted source (The New York Times, a very powerful STS disinformation organ) as an info-vector to do their bidding.
Fongool, NYT! Of course, in the weeks after, the Times is doing as much damage control as it can, dipping into its trusty bag of despicable tricks
to subtly undermine its own revelatory article's credibility. Thus maintaining the necessary Element of Doubt in accordance with the good old
Law of Confusion. No forcing anybody through some Shock-&-Awe event to take in titanically-important new information here! Strictly verbum sap.

* https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/current-ufo-disclosures-and-the-incredible-edible-new-york-times
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/...le-sources
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/...s-elizondo
Rappoport, a very canny and informed analyzer of Corrupt Authority & Its Malign Perceptual-Control Through Deception, skeptically sketches out
a logical framework of why in all probability this seemingly dependable front-line media revelation event should be just another black disinfo op full
of the usual spooky background machinations by The Usual Suspects to gull one and all once again. Ah, but in this case his usually spot-on kind of
realpolitikal interpretation is, surprisingly enough, an exercise in barking up the wrong tree. He is evidently unaware of certain important changes
in the opsec (operational security) directives regarding the handling of heretofore closely-held info, relaxing the intensity of its usual fierce bodyguard of lies.


I suppose I should elucidate my stance on the entire subject by stating that the exercise of wishful thinking (what "belief" amounts to, for many
people) about a thing is not necessary for those who have actual experience of the thing wished for. Or as Jimi Hendrix used to call it, being
experienced -- i.e., having a more advanced sentience contemplate you. This is objectively the more significant part of the phenomenon, I would
say. People tend to egotistically focus on the parts (especially the technical parts) of it more superficially entertaining & provocative to them, ac-
cording to their existing system of wishful thinking (which is, alas, merely an artifact of their civilizational conditioning). But then most people are
bass-ackwards in relation to reality anyway!



http://www.psychedelicadventure.net/2007...l-ufo.html