Thread about UFO disclosure in General Discussion:

[Mist]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6831546

[BanzaiBonnie]

1. What I notice is that SOMEONE moved the topic out of general discussion

Some people are in such denial that they can't even stand to have the discussion.

[Mist]

2. I had to leave the house this morning, so didn't catch exactly when it was moved. Doesn't

surprise me, however. Some topics are officially "woo" it seems.

[GregD]

51. it was moved to the 9/11 dungeon.

[MorningGlow]

3. Another brave attempt

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6834198

Let's see how long this one lasts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. It lasted, but take into account

I have seen a UFO... it was the Aurora project... and gosh darn it I was not alone...

There are many technical reasons why with OUR CURRENT technology I have to discount grays crossing the sea of space \ time, and if they are, anthro class must be in session.

But anybody saying there cannot be life away from Earth does not understand the current state of space research.

[MorningGlow]

18. I agree, Nadin

I think the linchpin of the anti-UFO argument is that we are judging other civilizations by OUR technology, not theirs. And sure, that would preclude the possibility of other civilizations dropping by. But oh gracious, how self-centered and egotistical, to think that what we have discovered at this moment in time is the absolute acme of all technology ever. Hell, in a few decades we're going to be laughing at how quaint we were, just as much as we laugh at the "space age" of the '50s.

[get the red out]

4. Science fundies will be fracked if disclosure ever happens

If disclosure ever happens then the science fundies of DU will be in worse mental shape trying to digest it than the religious fundies over at freeperville, not worse by much mind you, but worse non-the-less because they won't even have the "they're demons" theme to fall back on. They would have to re-think their entire, very strict paradigm. Not easy. They might then have to consider other, formerly forbidden topics with an open mind too, and I don't see how they could deal with it.

[Why Syzygy]

5. Do you realize that our government has now admitted

to the use of chemtrails? They say it is an effort to cool the atmosphere. I haven't seen any skeptic reactions. Maybe they will just stay in denial in spite of new evidence :shrug:

[get the red out]

6. I have thought about that

I didn't know they had admitted to the chemtrails, very interesting indeed! And how mysteriously quiet?

I also had considered that they might just remain in denial, or pretend the news meant nothing and just pretend it didn't happen the next day after any real disclosure, sort of like the shutting down that victims of abuse sometimes do, where the mind can't take what has happened so it simply shuts it out for psychological protection.

[BanzaiBonnie]

7. When and where? I missed it

I've got to find out about this.

Some of us have been mocked for far too long over the chemtrail issue.

[Why Syzygy]

8. It isn't MSM of course . reported by AP 4/9/2009

interview with Holdren. (The original report is no longer available.) I guess they are still denying that it has already been used. You don't hear a lot about cloud seeding either, but there is an entire website for the state of Texas rain seeding program. It is routine.

They call it "geo-engineering".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=meteorologists-say-yes-to-geoengine-2009-07-22
Jul 22, 2009 12:45 PM in Energy & Sustainability | 6 comments
Meteorologists say "yes" to geoengineering
By Brendan Borrell

Pumping sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to block the sun, brightening clouds with reflective sea salt, or fertilizing the oceans with iron are just some of the way-out schemes some scientists have proposed to fight global warming if all else fails.

This week, the American Meteorological Society issued a final version of its policy statement on geoengineering Earth’s climate system. The organization warns against the potential risks but also endorses research into the feasibility of such efforts, along with their ethical, social and political implications.

“Geoengineering will not substitute for either aggressive mitigation or proactive adaptation, but it could contribute to a comprehensive risk management strategy to slow climate change and alleviate some of its negative impacts,” the statement says.

President Barack Obama’s science advisor, physicist John Holdren, has previously said, “We have to keep geoengineering on the table...because we might get desperate enough to use it.”


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/holdren-clarifies-the-white-ho.html
April 9, 2009 3:39 PM
Media frenzy prompts White House clarification on geoengineering
Rowan Hooper, online news editor

John Holdren, the chief scientific adviser to Barack Obama, has had his first taste of what his new job entails: dealing with voracious journalists.

Formerly director of Harvard University's Science, Technology and Public Policy Program as well as of the Woods Hole Research Center, Holdren has felt the need to clarify his views on geoengineering after his first interview with the media was splashed all over the place with headlines that, he felt, went too far.
Holdren felt that the write-up of his interview with Associated Press implied that geoengineering the planet to combat climate change was under serious consideration by the Obama administration. ***

[Orrex]

15. Perhaps I'm missing something

I don't see anything in either article about chemtrails. They refer to the pumping of thermally reflective gas into the atmosphere, but that's quite different from scattering FNORD chemicals from jet engines.

If we're willing to make the leap from one to the other, we might as well claim that every attempt to relax pollution standards is likewise an admission of using chemtrails.


Or is there some explicit disclosure re: chemtrails in either of those articles that I missed, perhaps?

[Why Syzygy]

19. No. It's the same thing.

As I wrote, they refer to chemtrails as "geo-engineering". Same thing. If you're going to wait for them to use the specific word, "chemtrails", there is your escape clause. No one ever said chemtrails are from JET ENGINES. Quite the contrary.

[Orrex]

22. "Chemtrails" is play on "contrails." Why else would anyone call them "chemtrails?"

I'd be interested to read anything you'd care to offer that credibly asserts that "no one ever said chemtrails are from jet engines."

Incidentally, wikipedia has a good write up on chemtrails, but I can see how its tone might not be well-received here, so I won't give a link. It's easy enough to find, though.


But let me ask again: are you saying that any deliberate dispersal of chemicals into the atmosphere is part of the "chemtrail" phenomenon?

[Why Syzygy]

24. Yes.

Contrails are normal jet engine exhaust. Chemtrails are a mixture of additional substances.

I saw the wiki article. The meme is still, chemtrails are conspiracy. Even though, as we can read, to John Holdren they are "on the table" (geo-engineering) as a hair brained effort to save the planet. They could stop shooting HAARP and see how it goes. You don't even want to talk to me about global warming.

[Orrex]

46. You're making a leap there that isn't borne out by the articles you cited

Yes, they are considering the use of thermal-reflective gases in an attempt to offset the effect of greenhouse gases.

But that doesn't in any real way equate to "they've admitted using chemtrails."

If you see them as somehow being equivalent, I'd like to see your reasoning.


If, as you suggest, you consider all chemicals deliberately released into the atmosphere to qualify as chemtrails, then I think you've artificially broadened the term so that it happens to catch something that's verifiable. That's okay, as long we don't therefore assume that the unverified instances of the chemtrail phenomenon are real (e.g., fnord chemicals scattered by jets).

If you object to the release of thermal-reflective gases (which, I have to admit, sounds pretty shaky to me too), then you'd be well served to consider adopting a different label for your objection, if only to avoid confusing a verifiable objection with a substantially less certain prospect.

[Why Syzygy]

48. Since

I am not writing a book or giving sworn testimony, I'm fine with my label. People who have acquainted themselves with the chemtrail issue get it.

I don't know what chemicals are involved or whether or not ALL chemicals released are considered "chemtrail". I have found strings of unknown composition covering my car. I've seen the trails. The point is the government now concedes that this is not so far out as those who call us loons would suggest. I'm not going to dither about with skeptics as to terminology or verifiability.

How do you define "fnord"?

[CreekDog]

34. The government, even in that article has not admitted doing anything in terms of contrails

some guy was speculating that it's possible and probably had to correct himself because you can't say things like this without crazy people that believe there is some current conspiracy on the matter going still crazier.

the conspiracy theories on "chemtrails" from soup to nuts are one of the most insane things i've been exposed to. it suggests an action so pervasive to require so many to be involved yet secrecy beyond what ever would be possible all to do something that i don't think could do what conspiracy proponents claim (like mind control, cause specific problems, etc.).

:rant:

the more outlandish the theory, the more empirical evidence you should require before believing it.

if anyone buying the "chemtrail" argument is willing to do that, then i'm willing to not think they are loons.

[Why Syzygy]

36. Do you know where you are?

That "some guy" happens to be Obama's Science Advisor.

However, in this group you are not allowed to call us crazy or loons, asshole.

[CreekDog]

40. My post was not a disagreement with the group

it was about that specific issue which i think only you advocated.

[Why Syzygy]

42. Did you read post # 7?

You are in the wrong place for this kind of behavior. You will find out sooner or later.

[CreekDog]

43. I'm not arguing anymore

and it's too late for me to delete or edit that message anyway.

[Why Syzygy]

20. Video

*warning* This channel may not align with liberal ideologies. The video stands on its own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYVMb_kMz0A

[CreekDog]

33. No

and no again.

unless you care to provide evidence.

and as someone who used to talk to people who believed this, i can say that they are some of the most irrational people i've ever talked to.

[Why Syzygy]

37. You wandered in to the wrong group.

Take your arguments elsewhere.

[CreekDog]

39. This group is not here for people to defend chemtrail conspiracy theories

by the way.

[Why Syzygy]

41. Yes. It is.

This Group is for those who wish to positively explore issues having to do with Astrology, metaphysics & spirituality, homeopathy/alternative medicine and healing, Ascension, and other subjects having to do with holistic physical and spiritual growth & traditions.

This group is intended as a positive place for those who desire a deeper discussion of these stated topics and is not intended as a place to argue the merits of beliefs or choices.

[CreekDog]

44. It sounds like my only error was questioning belief in chemtrail theories

because this is not the place for that.

[Why Syzygy]

45. I'm glad you understand.

Calling people names for their beliefs is also not allowed. I know you just lost your way. No hard feelings. However, please refrain from posting judgments of our belief systems. The rest of DU is open for you to do that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually the people who follow the actual science will not have any issues

with it. I expect the discovery of life AWAY from Earth in my lifetime... yes we are that close with the damn sensors, as in next generation of sensors... I think they are supposed to go up by 2014.

But the deep space array will be able to find earth sized planets and read atmospheric make up.

[Why Syzygy]

11. The "science fundies"

of which we speak do NOT follow real science. They are stuck in the past. That's why they are "fundies".

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Well those folks are moving goal posts all the time

current science is threatening... partly because it is REALLY WEIRD. It is also getting hard to follow.

Of course the science illiteracy does not help...

I mean the but I want to see the CRITTER, ATMOSPHERE, et al... sure so do I... but due to the data we are moving to the next step of the experiment.. aka looking for life out there using OTHER set of sensors.

[get the red out]

14. You are right

Threads on quantum physics have been seemingly "trolled" on DU and I think, WTF? That's THE cutting edge, yes it's weird, but people used to go to prison for thinking the Earth orbited the Sun.

[TZ]

16. delete

[get the red out]

13. "Actual science" is the key

I agree, people who follow scientific method won't have a problem at all. But there are those who are "fundamentalist" in their scientific minds (the people who prefer to attack ideas that are "out of the box" rather than look into them), and will accept nothing if not created by man and proven to them in the mainstream media. I don't think they would be very comfortable in having man-kind not be the top of the food chain any more than religious fundamentalists. For people stuck in their "rules" it would be very difficult, they use "science" as a belief system and weapon, rather than a method for knowing truth, no matter what that truth may be.

Dr. Michio Kaku, for example, is a well-known scientist who I have little doubt would dive right in the day after disclosure for all the knowledge he could find.

[TZ]

17. delete

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. well string theory... it is just weird math...

I talked to actual physicists, and some do believe that the proof might be found in the Hadron Collider, and when and if that happens, it will turn our Einsteineian world on its head, like Einstein turned Newton on its head.

[get the red out]

35. Hadron Collider

Fascinating thing, I look forward to any answers the physicists can come up with from that. We live in a bit of an exciting time.

[NuttyFluffers]

49. true, many of these people hold to Materialism and not to the scientific method

our science, with our scientific method, is very open to ideas, questions, and hypotheses, and quite willing to revise itself.

a "science fundie" holds that we already know "the Truth," and that it is self evident in the material world, with everything supposedly having a peer reviewed journal already explaining it, leaving next to nothing left to explore. that's dogma, not science. instead, just about every scientist will tell you that their experiments almost always lead to more questions than answers.

it is quite sad seeing a lack of inquisitiveness -- a hallmark of science -- in such people who claim to embrace it the most. it's almost as irritating as people who suspend their critical thinking and believe just about everything they come across, especially from any hint of authority. both piss me off as not using their heads... scepticism is healthy, but being a "professional sceptic" tends towards dogmatic materialism, and is painfully unquestioning of its own sense of authority and interpretation of phenomena.

[JanusAscending]

26. My goodness!!

When I think that 30 yrs. ago, Rev. Billy Graham preached a sermon and wrote about the concept of other worlds out there in the Universe. He said to think that our Creator made Earth the only populated place in the Universe would decrease the wonder of his ability, therefore making Him less Omnipotent! Why has this been ignored by the fundies and Christian "right" in America?? He said he believed in a much bigger God! This preacher was the Pastor to many Presidents....how soon they forget.

[get the red out]

31. The Vatican has said much the same thing

A lot of denial in our world.

[OneGrassRoot]

23. I just saw someone at a different board altogether....

post how he has noticed a sudden, noticeable uptick in stories involving ET's and disclosure. He is a scientist and very open to all possibilities.

Interesting stuff. :)

[get the red out]

25. Trends like that are very interesting

That's a fun observation to know, thanks. Little trends like that are interesting in all kind of ways, even beyond the ET issue itself. It hints at minds becoming more open as well, which we need in many areas if humanity is to advance at all.

[Desertrose]

27. David Wilcock on Disclosure by the end of 2009 or early 2010...

This is just up today (10.23) on his blog.....

THE CASE IS BUILDING by David Wilcock
Everybody knows, deep down inside, that UFOs are real. If even one sighting is indeed an authentic extraterrestrial vehicle, then we are not alone -- and given the incredible variety of UFOs that have been witnessed, it is just as likely that we are being visited by a wide variety of different civilizations.

An official announcement by the Obama administration disclosing the reality of extraterrestrial life is imminent.

In conclusion, a diverse number of sources and events point to some form of extraterrestrial disclosure being made by the end of 2009, or early 2010. Official disclosure will most likely emerge in either of two scenarios. One is that President Obama will announce the existence of extraterrestrial visitors, and describe one or more of these to the world.

This scenario is supported by Peterson, Wilcock, and my own confidential sources. The second scenario is that an announcement will be made concerning the discovery of artificial structures at the moon’s South Pole, as revealed by the LCROSS mission. This scenario is supported by Hoagland.


Which ever of the above scenarios is used for announcing the existence of extraterrestrial life or technology, President Obama will figure prominently. Behind the scenes, powerful institutions are ensuring that nothing derails the planned disclosure announcement. The disclosure will follow upon a year of greater government openness on UFOs in accord with a policy secretly developed at the United Nations.

He also mentions a multiple contingency plans in place for disclosure to occur somewhere between now and the first quarter of 2010.

Lots more at link.

Quite a bit of information & videos....as David said...how deep down the rabbit hole do you want to go?

DR

edited to add this at the end of the blog:
"As I always say for my own work as well as all others, if you find it inspiring and uplifting, then use it -- and if not, then feel free to set it aside and look for something that you find more to your liking. That is how the Law of Free Will works, and how we are able to be blessed with inspirational messages that can get through to us without breaking 'the rules,' so to speak."

[Sanity Claws]

28. On Coast to Coast AM

Wilcock said before Christmas or end of the year (I forgot exactly but whatever it was excluded 2010) and that the time has already been booked on television.

[Desertrose]

29. Links to those shows...

From David's blog- it has links to Youtubes (audio only) of all 11 parts of the C2C show from 10/6.

Yeah, there was a ton of info in that show, wasn't there?

I think he said he pretty much knew the date but didn't want or chose not to tell cause things are always changing.

[Desertrose]

30. History Channel documentary..."I Know What I Saw"

The History Channel documentary "I Know What I Saw"(Pt1) is another sign that we are being formally prepared for Disclosure.

[OneGrassRoot]

32. Thanks for all this information!

:hi:

:hug:

[Why Syzygy]

38. Here's a playlist for all parts

if anyone is interested... The first video is a trailer. Series starts with video 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQDC_b5DUo0&feature=PlayList&p=1DB9A17F74F41005&index=0&playnext=1

[JanusAscending]

47. David also mentioned, and I wrote it down to remember...

on Nov. 8th at 9 P.M., there will be a 2hr. Special Documentary regarding all we are talking about here. I can't wait to see it!!!:woohoo: Oh, I almost forgot...it's on the Sci Fi channel!!

[Desertrose]

50. I know...I'm looking forward to it!

even if Sci Ffi is now calling itself :eyes: SYFY.