UFO sightings in decline: Good or bad sign?!

[Dominoid]

There could be different explanations as to the decrease in UFO sightings. I will propose this one:

As part of a disinformation campaign. There are people whose daily job is to search all over the internet and delete what they have been told to delete. Of course, UFO sightings are certainly considered "fake news", and there is an going trend for getting rid of "fake news" aka everything that doesn't fit with the official narratives. If "they" want us to eventually shut-up about UFOs, they will first get rid of them on the Internet, along ridiculing people, etc.

 

[Tuatha de Danaan]

There could be different explanations as to the decrease in UFO sightings. I will propose this one:

As part of a disinformation campaign. There are people whose daily job is to search all over the internet and delete what they have been told to delete. Of course, UFO sightings are certainly considered "fake news", and there is an going trend for getting rid of "fake news" aka everything that doesn't fit with the official narratives. If "they" want us to eventually shut-up about UFOs, they will first get rid of them on the Internet, along ridiculing people, etc.

Hi Dominoid.

I've had another thought on that. The C's have said programming complete. Maybe they don't need to be around so much now. Just an idea.

 

[Dominoid]

I've had another thought on that. The C's have said programming complete. Maybe they don't need to be around so much now. Just an idea.

I have read this comment in the thread, but I don't know what it means. If you could explain, I would be glad.

 

[Evan]

I have read this comment in the thread, but I don't know what it means. If you could explain, I would be glad.

Discussion of the Cs response that “Programming is complete” here:

Programming is complete

 

[Keit]

But Dore emphasizes a really good question that I myself can't quite figure out; why is Tucker Carson allowed to tell the truth on a major news network? That is weird as Jimmy Dore points out.

The above observation is from another thread, the one about Assange. But the question still stands. Because it IS strange how Tucker Carlson talks about such "controversial" topics in a matter of fact way, unless someone wants it to be normalized?

 

[genero81]

"We shouldn't start with theories and rule out facts." You mean the way Neo Darwinist/ Atheist do?

 

[anka]

I tend to think that the graph in the article Niall posted does not show a dramatic decline (yet) of sightings. Today it is still double of the 2001 figure.

People actually see less because "something" is causing them to see less even though it isn't less (coming back to the idea of the C's that certain things like "strobe lights" can interfere with the process of seeing them)?

You also noted that the fireball sightings went up a lot so I am more inclined to your point about people being more educated about atmospheric phenomena than seeing less although I agree that certain (perhaps big) number of people are not able to perceive their surroundings anymore.

It occurred to me that if, indeed, there is a long term decline and it has any connection to 'the programming is complete', it might have something to do with the Wave approaching and what if, for example, the 'playing field is getting levelled', the UFOs are having it harder to conceal their maneuvers and therefore pull back a bit or need to 'regroup' / change their tactics before pulling off another show? I would say answer to Niall's question 'is it good or bad' is unclear. What will be next? We should still work hard as ever to be alert and ready for unexpected so nothing changes in that manner for us, imho.

 

[MikaelYosef]

In relation to 'programming complete', I'd further suggest the sightings haven't necessarily decreased but people are less inclined to be wowed by something strange in the sky anymore and report it. It is so easy to attach a coloured flashing light, or a UFO-looking bell-shaped shell to the exterior of a consumer level drone. If a significantly strange flying object was seen in plain sight, people might immediately explain as a hoax by someone flying a drone. The recent reference in a Cs session to the incident at UK airports is an example - a drone is simple and easier to talk about.

Also, video editing technology is so accessible now that anything posted online is hard to believe as anything more than a staged hoax, or an edit with fake imagery. I think there's now so much more chaos and noise in people's lives that UFO sightings are low on the significance level. They can easily dismissed, and even if they genuinely thought they saw something, who would readily believe them when there are new ways to explain it all?

 

[anka]

The above observation is from another thread, the one about Assange. But the question still stands. Because it IS strange how Tucker Carlson talks about such "controversial" topics in a matter of fact way, unless someone wants it to be normalized?

Such talks are perhaps still heavily censored and only something is allowed to be aired. This is a video of T.Carlson talking to another last year, the talk seems very open with clear statements and suddenly it looks like T.C. got a command to end the chat with the guest immediately:

Description below the YT FoxNews video 8. 6. 2018: There's been little fallout from the acknowledgement of existence of the Pentagon’s secret project to investigate unidentified flying objects — the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) - and one expert believes it may be time for congressional hearings. #Tucker

 

[genero81]

I would love to sit down with Tucker and ask questions about why he's the only mainstreams news person who talks openly about so many 'off limit' topics. Is it because all the others are ignorant of what's really happening in our world? Are they just choosing of their own free will not to talk about what they know or suspect? Or is Tucker getting special leeway that the others don't get?

Would be interesting to hear his response. I wonder if he might come on a show like Jimmy Dore and answer some of those questions? Maybe I will try and contact Jimmy Dore and see if he might at least invite Tucker to be a guest.

 

[genero81]

Maybe I will try and contact Jimmy Dore and see if he might at least invite Tucker to be a guest.

I was able to message Jimmy Dore on FB and make the suggestion. Will see if anything comes of it.

 

[Z...]

So I'm not sure that an overt UFO invasion is needed - perhaps this is more like an "invasion of the body snatchers" - the cybergenetic types are increasing, leftist postmodernist hysteria is spreading like wildfire, etc. If I had to call it, we're being invaded, because the hardcore lefties might as well be "aliens" with how crazy they are. And the towers could possibly be used to also make people not see the craft as much, who knows, that's what they have been using strobe lights for since the 80's apparently.

Imminent 5G global rollout fits nicely into all this :(

 

[anka]

I would love to sit down with Tucker and ask questions about why he's the only mainstreams news person who talks openly about so many 'off limit' topics. Is it because all the others are ignorant of what's really happening in our world? Are they just choosing of their own free will not to talk about what they know or suspect? Or is Tucker getting special leeway that the others don't get?

Would be interesting to hear his response. I wonder if he might come on a show like Jimmy Dore and answer some of those questions? Maybe I will try and contact Jimmy Dore and see if he might at least invite Tucker to be a guest.

We can be sure that anyone in the corporate media is controlled. The fact that T.C. can speak a bit more openly and truthfully means that he is one of those chosen speakers who help to shape desired changes in the information field whenever situation requires such move (talking from PTBs or globalists' point of view). Media does not serve to report truth and if, let's say, Tucker would want to speak totally straight he would be taken down in no time. So yes, he is getting special leeway and he can't cross the line. We may assume he knows much more but his own views won't be televised.

 

[Woodsman]

Such talks are perhaps still heavily censored and only something is allowed to be aired. This is a video of T.Carlson talking to another last year, the talk seems very open with clear statements and suddenly it looks like T.C. got a command to end the chat with the guest immediately:

The particular story Tucker Carlson was reporting on was evidently initiated by actions from within the Navy, not the U.S. Airforce or Army. This struck me as significant. It has always been the Airforce with the biggest megaphone and stir-stick in the past when it came to UFOs. The Navy has always been quiet on the subject. For them to suddenly come forward is interesting.

The C's have indicated that the Navy, through some of its early experiences surrounding the Philadelphia Experiment, had accumulated a rather different knowledge set and "opinions" regarding UFOs than other groups.

A: Now, another interesting question! What is up with the Navy?

Q: What is up with the navy?

A: Maybe they know things they don't tell. Maybe what they know gives them a certain respect for "nature" and a hesitancy to meddle.

Q: Can you clarify?

A: Let's just say that the navy wouldn't play with the bullies because they know about bigger bullies. The navy learned a lot from the Philadelphia experiment. George Bush senior tried to get all the data about the things he heard and saw, but failed.

Q: What is the navy doing now?

A: Flying under the radar and waiting.

Q: Was there some sort of double-cross involved in the 9/11 attacks where one party of the plans attempted to blackmail another?

A: Indeed, though there were glitches.

Q: So if the Denver airport scandal is going to expose the government; is the government going to be deliberately exposed by some other party?

A: We have already said that airports are used by both STS and STO.

Q: Is there in-fighting among those in high levels over how to proceed?

A: At various levels, yes. But you know the old saying about incompetency seeking its own level like water.

Q: What does this mean?

A: Those at the top are there because of an agenda that each is concealing. They are waiting for the opportunity to act to influence. However they are learning that Bush is becoming more difficult to manage.

Q: How many people saw the Pentagon strike Flash presentation?

A: 300 million.

Perhaps T.Carlson, being one of the best trusted and respected spokespeople for Truth these days, (for people capable of receiving truth today through the MSM), has been selected as somebody's chosen representative to disseminate certain information packets to the public.

 

[Cosmos]

Interesting quotes from the C‘s you discovered there. Thank you, I wasn’t aware of those!