by Joseph P. Farrell, Giza Death Star:
If you’ve been following the field of ufology lately – or as I like (sometimes) to call it, ufoology – you’ve probably noticed a few attempts in the past two or three years by “the powers that be” to keep the subject on people’s minds. There was Tom DeLonge, Hal Puttoff and the To The Stars Academy; there were appearances of “former” CIA people on the national news shows along with recent video tapes and films of declassified gun camera footage showing our pilots chasing “somethings”; even the New York Times and a few magazines ran a few articles(it wasn’t, to be sure, the first time the Times had run articles about UFOs. It has been doing this for decades. But the context was different. We’ll get back to this). Many in the “disclosure community” took all this as a sign and signal that it (disclosure) was once again just around the corner. I remained, and remain, highly skeptical.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Nonetheless, there was something different about this latest round of stories, films, interviews and so on: the government, or at least, people connected with it, had changed their tune from the 1950s mantra “they’re nothing but swamp gas or other natural phenomena that have been misidentified or misunderstood” and from the 1960s Condon-Report-era mantra “they don’t exist” to the 1980s Reagan musings in front of the United Nations General Assembly (and Mr. Gorbachev) “what if they do exist and are out to get us? We would all drop our differences and make common cause. Will you help?” (Mr. Gorbachev: “Certainly we will!”) What was different about this last round was, well, the feel of it. There was evident coordination, and a kind of marketing campaign to keep people focused on the subject. There was talk that Darth Hillary was to be the “disclosure President” (with overtones of the feminine hand sweeping away decades of UFO-patriarchal male privilege with one executive order) until Mr. Trump ruined that narrative.
But the bottom line for me was there was a different “feel” to this. And in spite of the Covid planscamdemic, the stories and interviews, while they drifted off, did not cease completely. I thought at the time, and still think, a narrative was (and is) being prepared and marketed. But what narrative? This is where it gets interesting.
With that in mind, E.G. (and many more) sent along the following story about the new head of NASA, Bill Nelson, talking about UFOs:
When I read this story, a very odd thought occurred to me. Not only was this part of the sort of subtle “narrative preparation” that such marketing campaigns indulge in, it was also a very odd marketing campaign and narrative preparation, if indeed that is what it is. Consider the following statements:
“Before we leave, I haven’t even talked about the search for extraterrestrial life. What do you think we’re doing on Mars? We’re looking for life. This is a part of NASA’s mission. That’s what this telescope is gonna be looking for. Are there other planets elsewhere that there is life?” Nelson said near the end of a wide-ranging hourlong discussion with Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “I know what you’ve seen is what those Navy pilots saw in 2004, and there have been some 300 sightings since then.”
Nelson said that “I’ve talked to those pilots, and they know they saw something, and their radars locked onto it, and then all of a sudden it was here,” as he looked down, “on the surface and then it’s there,” as he pointed up.
“And they don’t know what it is, and we don’t know what it is. We hope it’s not an adversary here on Earth that has that kind of technology. But it’s something. And so, this is a mission that we’re constantly looking — what, who is out there? Who are we? How did we get here? How did we become as we are? How did we develop? How did we civilize? And are those same conditions out there in a universe that has billions of other suns in billions of other galaxies — it’s so large I can’t conceive it,” he continued.
Sabato tried to milk a definitive stance from the NASA administrator, pointing to a May episode of 60 Minutes on UFOs and commenting that there was speculation about whether the sightings were caused by China, the Russians, or “extraterrestrial intelligent beings.”
“What is your theory?” he asked Nelson. “You’ve heard a lot of options. Which one do you think is the most credible, if you could choose?”
“I don’t know the answer to that,” Nelson said. “But I do know this, that my personal opinion is that the universe is so big, and now, there are even theories that there might be other universes, and if that’s the case, who am I to say that planet Earth is the only location of a life form that is civilized and organized like ours?” The NASA leader added, “Are there are other planet earths out there? I certainly think so, because the universe is so big.”
The intelligence community warned that “some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity.” ODNI said that UFOs “would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology.” The possibility of UFOs being of extraterrestrial origin was not discussed.
It appears that NASA is keeping – along with the “intelligence ‘community'” – it’s narrative options open. “The universe is so big” that “they” could be extra-terrestrials. Then again, it could be Russia or China. Or it could be phenomena we don’t understand (and it is not a long jump from there to “it might be life forms of a wholly different nature than what we’re used to”).
Or – and this is the one that really caught my eye – it could be “a non-governmental entity” like a corporation, or hidden cabals and groups ala my “Nazi International” or sci-fi/fantasy author Martin Caidin’s Medelov Conspiracy and its group of scientists using public and private funds and conspiring in the jungles of Brazil to cook up their own nifty technologies and turn them loose on unsuspecting humanity in the ultimate technocratic thriller.
And there’s a final point to observe here about keeping the narrative options open: if such technologies could “also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms” then by parity of reasoning that “national security challenge” would also be the case if they were extra-terrestrial in origin.