IMO we were riding the wave about a year ago with the high point being the Congressional hearing with the three witnesses which both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell help put together. There were a few cobbled together politicians in Congress that were at the forefront of the effort to investigate the subject for various reasons led mainly by the outspoken Tim Burchett. However those efforts seem to have dissipated or stalled at least publically. In fact this whole episode seemed to point out that whatever evidence there maybe including what is said in private meetings and such, they are not meant for public preview. As Billy's post is pointing out, the effort to shut the lid on any whistleblower is going full speed ahead. The latest was the publically released case of Jack Teixeira (former member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard) who was found to have leaked highly sensitive information regarding classified military documents. He pleaded guilty and will now serve 16.6 years in federal prison. I am not defending Jack's actions in what he did, but pointing out that this to me is a put on notice display of what could happen to so called UFO whistleblowers etc. After all the UFO subject pertaining to the military has always been put on a highly classified level of so called 'National Security Interest'. As a few have pointed out, AARO will not be able to protect any whistleblower coming forward to them, even if that snake of a person Sean Kirkpatrick is not now heading that agency. So where are we? I could be wrong but would not count on any politician to really buck the system.
Yet, there seems to be a recognition, at the highest levels of government, that our ridiculous culture of secrecy has become unsustainable and counterproductive. Last year, DNI Avril Haines gave an hour-long speech warning how "overclassification undermines critical democratic objectives." Just last week, Time magazine took an extensive look at the growing fears by admin officials. https://time.com/6835724/americas-intelligence-secrets/ At what point, I wonder, does this tea kettle pop and explode?
While reading the article from time.com you posted I could not help but think who's 'strategic interest' it would be to greenlight information pertaining to what the government/military knows and has done about the subject of UFOs or NHI. Since the 'data' goes back to at least the 1950s you wonder how many connected entities there are that might be exposed to legal and political fallout that might come from keeping all this secret and over classified to this day. I do not really see a positive for anyone currently connected to this secrecy to want to release it publically. The strategic interest in declassifying information publicly on your adversaires is one thing but when it comes to your own institutions that might be a bridge to far to overcome.
There's plenty that can be advanced that is positive, to hopefully outweigh the negative. I choose to seek to find the positive aspects of our human existence.
Focusing on what's wrong, or could potentially go wrong, doesn't remove tomorrow of it's sorrows, it diminishes today of it's strength.
Skepticalaboutskeptics.com is a very good website for learning how true scientific skepticism has been purposefully turned into pseudo-skepticism by the scientific establishment in order to protect their source of income.
The Guerilla skeptics are just paid foot soldiers. They're also sociopaths.
Danny Shehanshould file a class action lawsuit against the Guerilla Skeptics. They are deliberately defaming many by their actions. Wikipedia also needs to be held accountable if they are aware that they are knowingly allowing false edits to individuals profiles. Their "intent" is not to "inform" but to "harm".
Maybe They will blow this all to hell today and go catastrophic, uncontrolled Disclosure and show up during the live moon landing at 4:24 p.m. EST. Then will see how the Wiki-jerks handle a live, undeniable event. Maybe?
I regularly posted on a guerilla skeptics forum for a period of time about 10 years ago by pretending to be a fellow pseudo-skeptic like them. Once they were thoroughly convinced that I was in their camp they started trying to recruit me by offering me money to help them with Wikipedia.
Wales is getting paid boatloads of money to accede to their wishes. There's no doubt that the money is coming from the spooks.
Yes, I'm curious about that too. Some of their more prolific editors/vandals may be getting six figure salaries. I'd bet a Shekel or two founder/organizer Susan Gerbic does. Irony is they are making big money off the "woo" while accusing the people they attack of being in it only for the money. (Another irony is that the reporter who wrote Paul Kurtz's obituary for the LA Times is named Elaine Woo, which I find very funny.)
I've heard a few anecdotes where family members (not my family) have tried to correct errors in Wikipedia biographies, only for the 'editors' to change it back again. It's a handy source, if you are aware of its limitations and that a lot seems to have been lifted directly from text books. What you pay is what you get. I'm not surprised that an extreme group, with a specific agenda, can hijack the system.
Perhaps the people on this forum represent part of the other extreme ( I know I do, to some extent), but is it a matter of free will that either side does so?
It's pretty well accepted that the IQ test (whatever it's actually measuring), results in a bell curve set of results, given a large enough population. Roughly 2% of a population will have an IQ of 70 or less, indicating that they are significantly impaired cognitively, representing a significant portion of those with special educational needs. 1 in 50. No potential parent wants to hear that. (And it brings up a separate issue of genetic editing.)
It also suggests that, while we don't live in a clockwork Newtonian reality, there are aspects of our reality that are statistically predictable.. And this has an impact on UAP research in several ways:
1. The probability of ET intelligence.
2. The interactions of ETs with developing civilisations, based on the predictability of any given civilisation's responses, including the internal conflict of handling (or not) information indicating an ET presence.
3. The implications of psi, which has been proven to exist, statistically.
In a nutshell, these Wiki interferers are likely an inevitable (extreme) result of the processes of evolution. One day we may make formal contact with another intelligence. Meanwhile we still have a long way to go before we understand ourselves and the extent of our reality.
In this never-ending tussle for hearts and minds, since you're talking percentages, do the debunkers exercise outsized influence? Or do they accurately represent who and where we are? Rhetorical questions, I guess, at this point.
Actively commenting individuals are the minority, on both sides. Given that news websites get maximum hits when UFOs are the topic, I'd guess that UFOs are a topic that a large portion of the public are aware of, to a varying extent. Until useful non-human tech is being sold on Amazon, then most people won't know what to believe, so the spread of opinions could be a bell curve as well.
The struggle for hearts and minds shouldn't be a struggle. It should be based on transparency and the best available information. If someone is hindering transparency then I'd be very suspicious.
Maybe follow the money. If I remember correctly, part of Rob Heatherly's investigation revealed the Guerilla Skeptics have a budget of something like $7 million a year. That's HUGE for a small organization of maybe a few hundred people at most. Somebody with deep pockets is funding them.
I would imagine that anyone with a master plan to destroy Wikipedia's credibility per the UFO issue would also be smart enough to erase their tracks on the financing end. Hoping I'm wrong.
I think the point isn't to destroy Wikipedia's credibility but the credibility of the subject matter itself using Wikipedia as the tip of the spear. Somebody is putting a lot of money into this, possibly paying Guerilla Skeptic editors tens of thousands of dollars a year each. There seem to be close ties between the Guerilla Skeptics and CSICOP, which also seems to be well-funded. The question in my mind is whether these organizations are privately funded by a wealthy donor or two, such as the late Paul Kurtz, or whether they are propaganda fronts for a State agency, who really fund them. I can't see that there is any money to be made in books and magazines on "scientific skepticism". If anything, it's a loser. It is known, e.g., that the CIA, as part of their propaganda efforts abroad, would create foreign publishing houses and publications that from the outside appear to be legitimate private businesses, but were secretly funded by the CIA and printing the party line. Doing that in some other country is legal from the CIA's charter, but not legal inside the U.S. The Church Committee into abuses of the CIA in the 1970s discovered the CIA was illegally manipulating public opinion in the U.S. by secretly having at least 500 American journalists on their payroll. That way they could slant the news any way they wanted. This was supposed to have stopped, but who knows what is really going on? And it doesn't have to be the CIA. Could be DOD, DOE, NSA, or big corporations like Lockheed. The DOD can't account for half their budget. Where's that missing money going to? $7 million would be a few days DOD coffee money to set up a propaganda group like Guerilla Skeptics. The Guerilla Skeptics themselves could just be acting as useful idiots not knowing who is ultimately signing the checks.
The FLIR (or FLIR1) (U.S. Navy) UFO video was filmed (approximately 100 miles off the coast of San Diego, California, on 14 November 2004) by USS Nimitz fighter pilot Lieutenant Chad Underwood.
Maybe there are a few rational skeptics out there willing to look at evidence that may be contrary to their beliefs but I do not know who they are. The lines of perceiving reality are blurring rapidly everywhere so trying to get to any truth is becoming more and more difficult. Scientific discoveries are moving at an extraordinary speed while the general population is left wondering what it all means. This leaves plenty of room for the pseudo skeptics to fill the gap or hold the line on any thing that might actually change our perception of reality as we might have known it or believed. As many have said, we are in a transformational period (some call it transhumanism) but the schism is wide on many fronts on how this will play out. The UFO subject and its ramifications is a perfect example of the situation we now face.
I would be curious if there are a few well known names in the Gorilla fan club that disclosure advocates would recognize...... that is if those with an agenda don't resort to pseudonyms in membership.
Mick West, Neil Degrassi Tyson, Bill Nye are admitted SCI fellows with Susan Gerbic. Physics teacher Joshua Schroeder is one of the hostile editors on Wikipedia along with LuckyLouie, JoJo Anthrax, Hob Gadling. I am working on software to more positively identify some of these people...
If you watch my 3 interviews on the Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford, or my interview on Coast To Coast AM, or Martin Willis, I explain in great detail how the skeptics are allowed a monopoly on Wikipedia. The short of it, is that the founder Jimmy Wales is a biased skeptic also, and endorses the Committee For Inquiry dogma that the skeptic debonkers peddle on Wiki and elsewhere both. Jimmy is aware of them, and thinks they are a net positive for the platform. So sorry I didn't see your comment before now!
I was envisioning the names of Mike Turner, Garrett Graff, Sean Fitzpatrick, Keith Kloor and Susie Gough.
Oh well maybe they utilize pseudo names to maintain the integrity of their profiles.
Someone('s ) (plural) is being paid by the deep state to continue the propaganda and subtle rebuttal . Congress can't get specific accountability re: their funding to the DOD so why would they care to not investigate this as well??
Every year I use and defer to Wikipedia as a source of objective, matter of fact content to differentiate the fake from the real.. Jimmy Wales sends a mass email informing me and millions of other users that only 2% of readership contribute donations to keep the platform operating..And I gave $10.00 this year. It appears that there's no true fact checking or editing re: the UAP subject...I want my money back!!
The other co-founder Larry Sanger has written multiple articles about how Wikipedia is biased and inaccurate. He also created an alternative information website to compete as an alternative to Wikipedia.
IMO we were riding the wave about a year ago with the high point being the Congressional hearing with the three witnesses which both George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell help put together. There were a few cobbled together politicians in Congress that were at the forefront of the effort to investigate the subject for various reasons led mainly by the outspoken Tim Burchett. However those efforts seem to have dissipated or stalled at least publically. In fact this whole episode seemed to point out that whatever evidence there maybe including what is said in private meetings and such, they are not meant for public preview. As Billy's post is pointing out, the effort to shut the lid on any whistleblower is going full speed ahead. The latest was the publically released case of Jack Teixeira (former member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard) who was found to have leaked highly sensitive information regarding classified military documents. He pleaded guilty and will now serve 16.6 years in federal prison. I am not defending Jack's actions in what he did, but pointing out that this to me is a put on notice display of what could happen to so called UFO whistleblowers etc. After all the UFO subject pertaining to the military has always been put on a highly classified level of so called 'National Security Interest'. As a few have pointed out, AARO will not be able to protect any whistleblower coming forward to them, even if that snake of a person Sean Kirkpatrick is not now heading that agency. So where are we? I could be wrong but would not count on any politician to really buck the system.
Yet, there seems to be a recognition, at the highest levels of government, that our ridiculous culture of secrecy has become unsustainable and counterproductive. Last year, DNI Avril Haines gave an hour-long speech warning how "overclassification undermines critical democratic objectives." Just last week, Time magazine took an extensive look at the growing fears by admin officials. https://time.com/6835724/americas-intelligence-secrets/ At what point, I wonder, does this tea kettle pop and explode?
While reading the article from time.com you posted I could not help but think who's 'strategic interest' it would be to greenlight information pertaining to what the government/military knows and has done about the subject of UFOs or NHI. Since the 'data' goes back to at least the 1950s you wonder how many connected entities there are that might be exposed to legal and political fallout that might come from keeping all this secret and over classified to this day. I do not really see a positive for anyone currently connected to this secrecy to want to release it publically. The strategic interest in declassifying information publicly on your adversaires is one thing but when it comes to your own institutions that might be a bridge to far to overcome.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1760898644339831014
Susan Gerbic (not Gough as stated in the video) is the leader of the Guerilla Skeptics.
She's ex-DoD, and she looks like her primary mode of transportation is a broom.
"The 'Guerrilla' Wikipedia Editors Who Combat Conspiracy Theories
Susan Gerbic's team of over 100 editors are responsible for some of Wikipedia’s most trafficked pages about UFOs and other pseudoscience."
https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-combat-conspiracy-theories/
--
They wanted me to help them edit any Wikipedia articles that had to do with the ET/UFO phenomenon.
But I never took it far enough to get a dollar figure. I just told them I was too busy to help, and stopped posting on the forum.
To be honest, it creeped me out.
Btw, thanks for the "Rotten to the Core" link, a real revelation. One more damn thing to be bummed out about.
There's plenty that can be advanced that is positive, to hopefully outweigh the negative. I choose to seek to find the positive aspects of our human existence.
Focusing on what's wrong, or could potentially go wrong, doesn't remove tomorrow of it's sorrows, it diminishes today of it's strength.
You're welcome, and thank-you for writing this.
Skepticalaboutskeptics.com is a very good website for learning how true scientific skepticism has been purposefully turned into pseudo-skepticism by the scientific establishment in order to protect their source of income.
The Guerilla skeptics are just paid foot soldiers. They're also sociopaths.
Agreed.
Danny Shehanshould file a class action lawsuit against the Guerilla Skeptics. They are deliberately defaming many by their actions. Wikipedia also needs to be held accountable if they are aware that they are knowingly allowing false edits to individuals profiles. Their "intent" is not to "inform" but to "harm".
Exactly what my team are continuing to ramp up efforts towards.
Some of the edits I've seen definitely look actionable. But apparently, GSoW has deep enough pockets to retain decent counsel.
Great work Billy!
Maybe They will blow this all to hell today and go catastrophic, uncontrolled Disclosure and show up during the live moon landing at 4:24 p.m. EST. Then will see how the Wiki-jerks handle a live, undeniable event. Maybe?
It'd be like plunging your shoe into a fire ant mound. "Comic hilarity follows."
Jimmy Wales is a 1st class POS.
Wikipedia is Rotten to the Core
https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/wikipedia-rotten-core/
I regularly posted on a guerilla skeptics forum for a period of time about 10 years ago by pretending to be a fellow pseudo-skeptic like them. Once they were thoroughly convinced that I was in their camp they started trying to recruit me by offering me money to help them with Wikipedia.
Wales is getting paid boatloads of money to accede to their wishes. There's no doubt that the money is coming from the spooks.
What exactly were they asking you to do? And how much money were they talking?
Yes, I'm curious about that too. Some of their more prolific editors/vandals may be getting six figure salaries. I'd bet a Shekel or two founder/organizer Susan Gerbic does. Irony is they are making big money off the "woo" while accusing the people they attack of being in it only for the money. (Another irony is that the reporter who wrote Paul Kurtz's obituary for the LA Times is named Elaine Woo, which I find very funny.)
Sorry Billy.
Somehow my answer ended up at the top.
The shout out to Duvall and Wendt is great. Their paper is worth a read!
Again and again!!
I've heard a few anecdotes where family members (not my family) have tried to correct errors in Wikipedia biographies, only for the 'editors' to change it back again. It's a handy source, if you are aware of its limitations and that a lot seems to have been lifted directly from text books. What you pay is what you get. I'm not surprised that an extreme group, with a specific agenda, can hijack the system.
Perhaps the people on this forum represent part of the other extreme ( I know I do, to some extent), but is it a matter of free will that either side does so?
It's pretty well accepted that the IQ test (whatever it's actually measuring), results in a bell curve set of results, given a large enough population. Roughly 2% of a population will have an IQ of 70 or less, indicating that they are significantly impaired cognitively, representing a significant portion of those with special educational needs. 1 in 50. No potential parent wants to hear that. (And it brings up a separate issue of genetic editing.)
It also suggests that, while we don't live in a clockwork Newtonian reality, there are aspects of our reality that are statistically predictable.. And this has an impact on UAP research in several ways:
1. The probability of ET intelligence.
2. The interactions of ETs with developing civilisations, based on the predictability of any given civilisation's responses, including the internal conflict of handling (or not) information indicating an ET presence.
3. The implications of psi, which has been proven to exist, statistically.
In a nutshell, these Wiki interferers are likely an inevitable (extreme) result of the processes of evolution. One day we may make formal contact with another intelligence. Meanwhile we still have a long way to go before we understand ourselves and the extent of our reality.
In this never-ending tussle for hearts and minds, since you're talking percentages, do the debunkers exercise outsized influence? Or do they accurately represent who and where we are? Rhetorical questions, I guess, at this point.
Actively commenting individuals are the minority, on both sides. Given that news websites get maximum hits when UFOs are the topic, I'd guess that UFOs are a topic that a large portion of the public are aware of, to a varying extent. Until useful non-human tech is being sold on Amazon, then most people won't know what to believe, so the spread of opinions could be a bell curve as well.
The struggle for hearts and minds shouldn't be a struggle. It should be based on transparency and the best available information. If someone is hindering transparency then I'd be very suspicious.
Maybe follow the money. If I remember correctly, part of Rob Heatherly's investigation revealed the Guerilla Skeptics have a budget of something like $7 million a year. That's HUGE for a small organization of maybe a few hundred people at most. Somebody with deep pockets is funding them.
I would imagine that anyone with a master plan to destroy Wikipedia's credibility per the UFO issue would also be smart enough to erase their tracks on the financing end. Hoping I'm wrong.
I think the point isn't to destroy Wikipedia's credibility but the credibility of the subject matter itself using Wikipedia as the tip of the spear. Somebody is putting a lot of money into this, possibly paying Guerilla Skeptic editors tens of thousands of dollars a year each. There seem to be close ties between the Guerilla Skeptics and CSICOP, which also seems to be well-funded. The question in my mind is whether these organizations are privately funded by a wealthy donor or two, such as the late Paul Kurtz, or whether they are propaganda fronts for a State agency, who really fund them. I can't see that there is any money to be made in books and magazines on "scientific skepticism". If anything, it's a loser. It is known, e.g., that the CIA, as part of their propaganda efforts abroad, would create foreign publishing houses and publications that from the outside appear to be legitimate private businesses, but were secretly funded by the CIA and printing the party line. Doing that in some other country is legal from the CIA's charter, but not legal inside the U.S. The Church Committee into abuses of the CIA in the 1970s discovered the CIA was illegally manipulating public opinion in the U.S. by secretly having at least 500 American journalists on their payroll. That way they could slant the news any way they wanted. This was supposed to have stopped, but who knows what is really going on? And it doesn't have to be the CIA. Could be DOD, DOE, NSA, or big corporations like Lockheed. The DOD can't account for half their budget. Where's that missing money going to? $7 million would be a few days DOD coffee money to set up a propaganda group like Guerilla Skeptics. The Guerilla Skeptics themselves could just be acting as useful idiots not knowing who is ultimately signing the checks.
Entirely plausible. Especially when Congress is an absentee landlord.
These efforts help immensely
Billy, the xtools link does not work.
Well shit. Looks like that address has gotten squishy. See if this works: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/index.php
Billy, thanks!
Luis Elizondo and Jay Stratton have told us the real UFO news.
https://x.com/LueElizondo/status/1684729197674246145
Debunkers, game over!
U.S. government UFO video:
The FLIR (or FLIR1) (U.S. Navy) UFO video was filmed (approximately 100 miles off the coast of San Diego, California, on 14 November 2004) by USS Nimitz fighter pilot Lieutenant Chad Underwood.
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/1%20-%20FLIR.mp4
Maybe there are a few rational skeptics out there willing to look at evidence that may be contrary to their beliefs but I do not know who they are. The lines of perceiving reality are blurring rapidly everywhere so trying to get to any truth is becoming more and more difficult. Scientific discoveries are moving at an extraordinary speed while the general population is left wondering what it all means. This leaves plenty of room for the pseudo skeptics to fill the gap or hold the line on any thing that might actually change our perception of reality as we might have known it or believed. As many have said, we are in a transformational period (some call it transhumanism) but the schism is wide on many fronts on how this will play out. The UFO subject and its ramifications is a perfect example of the situation we now face.
I'm kinda hoping we're not smart enough to figure it out. Can you imagine how insufferable we'd be? In three years there'd be 15 billion of us
I would be curious if there are a few well known names in the Gorilla fan club that disclosure advocates would recognize...... that is if those with an agenda don't resort to pseudonyms in membership.
Mick West, Neil Degrassi Tyson, Bill Nye are admitted SCI fellows with Susan Gerbic. Physics teacher Joshua Schroeder is one of the hostile editors on Wikipedia along with LuckyLouie, JoJo Anthrax, Hob Gadling. I am working on software to more positively identify some of these people...
It appears that Joshua Schroeder is now known as Joshua Tan (??). He has quite a history on Wikipedia. For example, as per this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%E0%B6%A2%E0%B6%B4%E0%B7%83/Previous_Account_Names), he has edited under 10 different IDs. (I wonder why.) Please see this page (https://www.velikovsky.info/joshua-p-schroeder/) for some details re. sock puppetry activity, blocks, arbitration, etc. Can someone please explain why this is permitted?
If you watch my 3 interviews on the Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford, or my interview on Coast To Coast AM, or Martin Willis, I explain in great detail how the skeptics are allowed a monopoly on Wikipedia. The short of it, is that the founder Jimmy Wales is a biased skeptic also, and endorses the Committee For Inquiry dogma that the skeptic debonkers peddle on Wiki and elsewhere both. Jimmy is aware of them, and thinks they are a net positive for the platform. So sorry I didn't see your comment before now!
Keep up in your endeavors.
I was envisioning the names of Mike Turner, Garrett Graff, Sean Fitzpatrick, Keith Kloor and Susie Gough.
Oh well maybe they utilize pseudo names to maintain the integrity of their profiles.
Someone('s ) (plural) is being paid by the deep state to continue the propaganda and subtle rebuttal . Congress can't get specific accountability re: their funding to the DOD so why would they care to not investigate this as well??
I haven't been able to rule out a USG disinfo , psyops campaign!
What sort of evidence would convince you that those factors are in play?
Finding a known DOD employee editing Wikipedia on UFO related topics, attempting to discredit the evidence of NHI existence...
If you're so inclined, email me at skezixx@aol.com -- would like to run something past you.
Keep up the great work, Rob. I look forward to following your trail.
Thank you! I'm still learning how to navigate Substack, so didn't find these comments before now!
Aw shucks
Every year I use and defer to Wikipedia as a source of objective, matter of fact content to differentiate the fake from the real.. Jimmy Wales sends a mass email informing me and millions of other users that only 2% of readership contribute donations to keep the platform operating..And I gave $10.00 this year. It appears that there's no true fact checking or editing re: the UAP subject...I want my money back!!
Well, it was a great idea. Still is. If not for human behavior, it'd be perfect.
The other co-founder Larry Sanger has written multiple articles about how Wikipedia is biased and inaccurate. He also created an alternative information website to compete as an alternative to Wikipedia.