Rubio: Other whistleblowers have come forward secretly

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: putnam6

Hell, there is lots to think about, when we have heard we don't know. which acknowledges there is something there but we don't know what it is

An old phrase comes to mind: Wilderness of Mirrors.

Now thats a cool reference, I wasn't aware of the phrase but it fits like a glove here.

I bounce from it's an elaborate ruse and there are no such phenomena, to where we know it's real but we know virtually nothing about them and we are basically at their mercy.

The irony whatever Congress gleans from this, we likely won't believe it, even if it 100% the truth.

The phrase "wilderness of mirrors" from the poem has been alluded to by many other writers and artists. It has been used as the titles of plays by Van Badham and Charles Evered, of novels by Max Frisch, and of albums by bands such as Waysted. Rock singer Fish entitled his first solo album Vigil in a Wilderness of Mirrors.

Some commentators believe that James Jesus Angleton took the phrase from this poem when he described the confusion and strange loops of espionage and counter-intelligence, such as the Double-Cross System, as a "wilderness of mirrors".[25][26] It thence entered and has since become commonplace in the vocabulary of writers of spy novels or of popular historical writing about espionage. It was the title of an episode of the television series JAG where the protagonist is subjected to disinformation.[27]

Another prominent line in the poem, "In depraved May, dogwood and chestnut, flowering judas/To be eaten, to be divided, to be drunk", is the origin of the title of Katherine Anne Porter's first collection of short stories, Flowering Judas and Other Stories (1930).

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: andre18

I would say that revealing that some alien tech has been reverse engineered would not be a good thing for the rest of the world to know either.

Yes, national security.

Why do we make some technology unlawful to sell to some other countries? Dont those discoveries belong to the human race?

I don't think alien tech should be handled any differently than any other technical advance we make. We don't share it all with everyone.

One could postulate that this technology, rather than being attributed to any specific nation, government, or organization, actually belongs to the entirety of humanity. Thus, it becomes imperative to recognize that no singular entity possesses the right to monopolize knowledge or exercise control over this technological advancement. This perspective underscores the principle of global collaboration and shared custodianship over knowledge and resources.

If we consider the possibility that this technology stems from a non-human origin, it assumes the character of a discovery pertaining to the wider universe, transcending the confines of our own planet or species. From this standpoint, it can be viewed as an integral part of our collective cosmic heritage.

The notion that we should act as stewards of this knowledge, rather than proprietors, and that such knowledge ought to be disseminated for the benefit of all, can form a pivotal component of the discourse regarding how to handle this significant revelation.

Ordinarily, when technology emerges through human ingenuity, it becomes subject to intellectual property laws that confer exclusive rights upon the creator(s) to utilize and profit from their invention. These rights are typically safeguarded by patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, which can be legally enforced. These laws fundamentally rest upon the concept of ownership, deeming the creator as the rightful owner of the technology, thereby granting them authority over its usage.

However, in the case of extraterrestrial technology, this conventional framework of intellectual property rights ceases to apply. If we were not responsible for its creation, can we genuinely lay claim to ownership? And in the absence of ownership, do we possess the prerogative to classify and regulate access to it? This scenario introduces an entirely novel array of ethical, legal, and philosophical questions that demand our utmost consideration.

From a legal standpoint, definitive guidance may be elusive. Existing space-related laws, such as the Outer Space Treaty, primarily focus on matters pertaining to nation states and their activities in space, neglecting the realm of alien artifacts or technology discovery.

From an ethical vantage point, one could contend that it would be presumptuous, perhaps even hubristic, to assert ownership over technology forged by another sentient species, particularly when uncertainty surrounds the intentions of its creators.

Nonetheless, from a practical standpoint, some form of control and regulation over the technology would likely be necessary, particularly if it harbors potential dangers or disruptive capabilities. Even if we do not possess conventional "ownership" of the technology, we may still bear the responsibility to exercise prudent management over it.

This predicament also prompts contemplation on the principle of "finders keepers"—does stumbling upon an abandoned or lost object automatically bestow upon one the right of ownership? Furthermore, how might this principle be applied on a cosmic scale?

originally posted by: andre18

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: andre18

I would say that revealing that some alien tech has been reverse engineered would not be a good thing for the rest of the world to know either.

Yes, national security.

Why do we make some technology unlawful to sell to some other countries? Dont those discoveries belong to the human race?

I don't think alien tech should be handled any differently than any other technical advance we make. We don't share it all with everyone.

One could postulate that this technology, rather than being attributed to any specific nation, government, or organization, actually belongs to the entirety of humanity. Thus, it becomes imperative to recognize that no singular entity possesses the right to monopolize knowledge or exercise control over this technological advancement. This perspective underscores the principle of global collaboration and shared custodianship over knowledge and resources.

If we consider the possibility that this technology stems from a non-human origin, it assumes the character of a discovery pertaining to the wider universe, transcending the confines of our own planet or species. From this standpoint, it can be viewed as an integral part of our collective cosmic heritage.

The notion that we should act as stewards of this knowledge, rather than proprietors, and that such knowledge ought to be disseminated for the benefit of all, can form a pivotal component of the discourse regarding how to handle this significant revelation.

Ordinarily, when technology emerges through human ingenuity, it becomes subject to intellectual property laws that confer exclusive rights upon the creator(s) to utilize and profit from their invention. These rights are typically safeguarded by patents, copyrights, and trade secrets, which can be legally enforced. These laws fundamentally rest upon the concept of ownership, deeming the creator as the rightful owner of the technology, thereby granting them authority over its usage.

However, in the case of extraterrestrial technology, this conventional framework of intellectual property rights ceases to apply. If we were not responsible for its creation, can we genuinely lay claim to ownership? And in the absence of ownership, do we possess the prerogative to classify and regulate access to it? This scenario introduces an entirely novel array of ethical, legal, and philosophical questions that demand our utmost consideration.

From a legal standpoint, definitive guidance may be elusive. Existing space-related laws, such as the Outer Space Treaty, primarily focus on matters pertaining to nation states and their activities in space, neglecting the realm of alien artifacts or technology discovery.

From an ethical vantage point, one could contend that it would be presumptuous, perhaps even hubristic, to assert ownership over technology forged by another sentient species, particularly when uncertainty surrounds the intentions of its creators.

Nonetheless, from a practical standpoint, some form of control and regulation over the technology would likely be necessary, particularly if it harbors potential dangers or disruptive capabilities. Even if we do not possess conventional "ownership" of the technology, we may still bear the responsibility to exercise prudent management over it.

This predicament also prompts contemplation on the principle of "finders keepers"—does stumbling upon an abandoned or lost object automatically bestow upon one the right of ownership? Furthermore, how might this principle be applied on a cosmic scale?

Damn Andre dropping truth bombs and while it might be the middle of the day in Oz, here in my neck o the woods in Uncle Sam land, its early as hell .

Off the top of my head, respectfully if I find a civil war musket in my back yard I own that musket, do I not? or any other artifact for that matter.


Not to mention this would assume those possessing such technology would have ethics and morals. I'm thinking if we are getting actual disclosure it's on an artifact they have had for a while and have tried to understand its origins and purpose to no avail.

Still, the doesn't approach if we actually have whole intact vehicles and the occupants as Grusch has claimed. Hell FAWK there is already an international law and after 40 years of research and experimentation, it is to be released to the public. If they can sit on JFK's assassination they would sit on this for as long as they can.

If all these "whistleblowers" would be prostitutes and wouldn´t be blowing whistles but d!cks for money, they would starve in no time because no dollar was made because no d!ck was ever and will ever be blown.

The whole disclosure charade feels like a simple trick. Someone points to the sky and says UFOs are real and they are out there, people don´t stop looking at the sky, standing in their backyard, searching for these UFOs while they don´t notice that their house behind them is burned down by somebody else and for whatever reason. Like a magician who makes you look to somewhere else than where the trick is done.

originally posted by: The GUT
Hey I believe. But I'm careful what or who I believe.

If this is Disclosure I'm thrilled.

But it's like all of a sudden somebody somewhere really really wants us to believe.

It doesn't seem suspect to you at all?

I thought I would be more excited when "disclosure" came, but if this is it, I keep feeling like I'm being scammed again. I could just be bitter after the scamdemic, the election, and the MSM ignoring the greatest scandal in our history. Yea, I'll go with bitter.

But after years of seeing everyone who legit saw something, be ridiculed and laughed at, I'd prefer pitchforks and torches. Just offer a show of gratitude to those who make all of that possible. Yea, definitely bitter.

a reply to: putnam6

The other thing is, if the noises made about a below-the-radar arms race occurring are true, all disclosure would do is (maybe) make that arms race public. It wouldn't stop the arms race.

Whole thing is suspicious. I believe that high strangeness involving UFOs has occurred, but I'm not convinced any government has actually gotten ahold of anything useful, much less reverse-engineered it.

Cheers

a reply to: andre18

They really have to be careful with this.
Each time a law is drawn out, there is a risk that it contains use of words that enable potential misusers of said law to avoid being affected by it simply by changing definitions.

There's nothing like an invisible Enemy, to keep the huddled masses open to suggestion...

So either we never see anything, or they're gonna give us a Hollywood-Special-FX-Show.
( Apologies to any and all whom believe that they have had a UFO experience. )


The Arrival - Unarius ( 1979-1980 )

I find Rubio to be hard to trust.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels

If we do have alien tech, I think it should stay classified. Why wouldn't it?

Knowing that's how the national security state thinks and then seeing a hawk like Rubio cheering on whistleblowers and the public buying the narrative is alien to me (oh yes I did.)

Then again part of the spin here is private contractor malfeasance.

Who do I believe is not the question but rather who do I not believe. That's my starting point lol.

I think a lot of this happening is because of what Ike said, (I think it was Ike (Eisenhauer), that it wasn't going to be in the best hands. And now a few people are getting some new leverage. (Although that may not be in the best hands either. )

There's never been any real oversight.

On Reddit, definitely, there is more gung-ho that the present-day disclosure movement is legit. Like many here, I’m skeptical about what, as Steve Basset declares on the Dolan show: we're entering the post-disclosure era. I find that laughable.

At best, it’s a post-US gov finally admitting they don’t know what this is era; fine, I go for that, but IMO, that’s about all it is right now.

I mean, we've heard this before, haven't we? That " disclosure" is just around the corner, and when we go around the corner, we get mugged.

originally posted by: introufo

I mean, we've heard this before, haven't we? That " disclosure" is just around the corner, and when we go around the corner, we get mugged.

Unfortunate for us that the potential mugger in this instance is the most experienced, sophisticated and powerful thug to ever exist.

One of the things that stands out is that the "We Want You to Believe" media & political blitz appears, to me, to mostly be aimed at the general public. Making new "believers."

For those here with a deeper grasp of "ufology" what do you make of the "Bigelow" cadre involved in this at ground level knowing that some of them have floated sophisticated but untrue UFO tales in the past?

How does that play in here? I mean it would seem to be relevant wouldn't it?

a reply to: The GUT

For those here with a deeper grasp of "ufology" what do you make of the "Bigelow" cadre involved in this at ground level knowing that some of them have floated sophisticated but untrue UFO tales in the past

You know, I don’t know what they're doing, but their doing something.
TTSA and that 2017 NYT breakthrough is just too government connected (and the Bigelow group may be in the background here) to be innocuous or a sincere disclosure.

But if it's legit, then go ahead and disclose and stop playing around. What’s stopping the thugs?

Is all of this an effort to get Congress to force them to disclose? Which is what Bassett seeming is saying.
But why all the gymnastics?
Or maybe jinnastics?

Or maybe it's a problem of the illegal acts some of the thugs did that they don’t want any of them exposed to prosecution.
I don’t like being too cynical, but this is a show; we just have to find out what the Wizard of Oz is really up to.

a reply to: introufo

You know, I don’t know what they're doing, but their doing something.
TTSA and that 2017 NYT breakthrough is just too government connected (and the Bigelow group may be in the background here) to be innocuous or a sincere disclosure.

Absolutely trying to do "something" but it's so disjointed & obscure they're clusterclucking it. As far as the older cadre (Bigelow's group & other long termers) If their lips are moving they're lying. A'la same as politicians.

This whole dog & pony version of disclosure/whistleblowers is entertaining but lets not forget if regular joes wanna know about UAPs/UFOs they just need to sky watch. No official govt presser needed. Currently everyone govt affiliated, military, alphabet agency can neither predict, stop, match tech with anything zooming around our airspace.

It's cute there's a kerfuffle in forcing elected officials to get on board with arial reality but that's hardly disclosure is it?
Surely the humor of one portion of our govt being forced to tell the other part "we have stuff, we don't know what it is & by the way we're clueless about everything else too" passed off as earth shattering? Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

The meme's of religious turmoil, us sharing everything like we're entering some version of being cosmic citizens, assuming anything off world can illuminate our origins is all "straw man fallacy" currently the facts are we don't know much & neither does our govt or anyone else's.

BTW we could be shown a craft or dead aliens without revealing any tech or state secrets other than "oh yeah we've had them, whoops!"

They do visit. They are here, but not for us. They visit the others living here. The NHI’s.

originally posted by: network dude

I thought I would be more excited when "disclosure" came, but if this is it, I keep feeling like I'm being scammed again.

🤣😂🤣

That’s a Choice thought there…buddy

👽

For me, no matter who says what, or what who even is, the absolute fact that there is no evidence whatsoever, of an unknown intelligence, alien or interdimensional, or any other excuses for the lack of evidence, is the most important thing to consider.

a reply to: vance

So, what do you think is going on here, Vance? We're being groomed it would seem but to what purpose?

The world is about to get weird. Weirder I mean.

originally posted by: putnam6

Off the top of my head, respectfully if I find a civil war musket in my back yard I own that musket, do I not? or any other artifact for that matter.

As it stands, if someone were to find an artifact of significant historical value on their property, they would generally be permitted to claim it as their own. However, if the artifact is deemed to have outstanding cultural, scientific, or historical value, the government often steps in to ensure its protection and proper handling, even on private property.

Now, if we transpose this scenario to the finding of an alien artifact, we are delving into new and unexplored legal territory. Given the potentially monumental significance of such a discovery, one could argue that it transcends the concept of personal property rights. From this perspective, such an artifact would more fittingly belong to all of humanity, not just the individual who happened to stumble upon it.

However, it's equally crucial to consider the practicalities of this scenario. The individual who discovers the artifact might indeed have initial possession rights, just as you would if you found a Civil War musket. But the sheer significance of the discovery may warrant intervention by authorities who would, ideally, act in the best interest of humanity as a whole.

The discovery of extraterrestrial technology is not merely an issue of individual versus collective ownership but also a question of stewardship. How do we as a species handle such a monumental revelation? How do we study, safeguard, and possibly utilize this technology in a way that benefits everyone and poses minimal risk?

In the end, it's likely that our current laws and conventions would prove inadequate to address these complex issues. We would need to forge new pathways in law and ethics to accommodate this unprecedented situation. It's a fascinating subject to contemplate, with the potential to dramatically reshape our understanding of property, discovery, and our place in the cosmos.

We've known about those Flux liners for decades now.

I'm sure whatever they've got now resembles real alien tech.

It's just the deep state playing with their little toys.