CNN takes a skeptical look at the recent UFO hearing.

I just came across this article on the CNN website:

www.cnn.com...

The opinion piece is very skeptical about Grusch and his claims. It points out that we had Congressional hearings about this subject before, but nothing has changed!

Unfortunately, I have to reluctantly agree with the article. We are let to believe that we’re on a steep path to disclosure, but when you take away the hoopla we’re exactly where we’ve been for 80 years.

a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious in almost everything, I mean literally everything

a reply to: CyberBuddha

Hopefully you took precautions before clicking on the CNN (Chinese News Network) website…..perhaps you don’d on a bio hazmat suit then decontaminated yourself after exiting the website.

👽

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
I just came across this article on the CNN website:

www.cnn.com...

The opinion piece is very skeptical about Grusch and his claims. It points out that we had Congressional hearings about this subject before, but nothing has changed!

Unfortunately, I have to reluctantly agree with the article. We are let to believe that we’re on a steep path to disclosure, but when you take away the hoopla we’re exactly where we’ve been for 80 years.

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious in almost everything, I mean literally everything

Agreed. CNN is not credible. CNN is part of the problem. Why should anyone trust their "insights"?

originally posted by: [httppost=27081473]schuyler[/post]

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious inalmost everything, I mean literally everything

Agreed. CNN is not credible. CNN is part of the problem. Why should anyone trust their "insights"?

I disagree...on the assumption that CNN is not a credible news source.

In fact...I agree with the Pentagon's report that they don't have any evidence of captured space aliens or their spacecraft.

source:

"The UFO congressional hearing was 'insulting' to U.S. employees, a top Pentagon official says."

www.pressdemocrat.com...

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: [httppost=27081473]schuyler[/post]

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious inalmost everything, I mean literally everything

Agreed. CNN is not credible. CNN is part of the problem. Why should anyone trust their "insights"?

I disagree...on the assumption that CNN is not a credible news source.

In fact...I agree with the Pentagon's report that the don't have any evidence of captured space aliens or their spacecraft.

"The UFO congressional hearing was 'insulting' to U.S. employees, a top Pentagon official says."

www.msn.com...

Need to clarify, your MSN link just goes to the front page.

It's not an assumption that CNN isn't a credible news source/

For instance, when the UAP hearing was going on, CNN was talking OMB

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: [httppost=27081473]schuyler[/post]

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious inalmost everything, I mean literally everything

Agreed. CNN is not credible. CNN is part of the problem. Why should anyone trust their "insights"?

I disagree...on the assumption that CNN is not a credible news source.

In fact...I agree with the Pentagon's report that they don't have any evidence of captured space aliens or their spacecraft.

source:

"The UFO congressional hearing was 'insulting' to U.S. employees, a top Pentagon official says."

www.pressdemocrat.com...

For a moment, I thought you were being serious.

a reply to: CyberBuddha

Let me give you some Life advice that will serve you very well.

CNN is a Joke pay no attention to them.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious in almost everything, I mean literally everything

Agreed. CNN is not credible. CNN is part of the problem. Why should anyone trust their "insights"?

It's a brilliant move by the psyop designers. If CNN doubts it many folk will then believe it out of conditioning. I mean let's be honest: That usually works.

And...I don't think I'm joking? Sounds like a joke, but...

a reply to: schuyler

One doesn't have to dig deeply, at all, to find a Puthoff or a Green and George's face is plastered all over it, sooooo...what do you make of that, Sky?

Have the rascals always been forced-disclosure heroes or should we be suspicious as heck?

I’m so glad everybody is attacking the messenger and not the message. Are both interchangeable at this point in time? Way to go to advance the topic ATS.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
I’m so glad everybody is attacking the messenger and not the message. Are both interchangeable at this point in time? Way to go to advance the topic ATS.

So...you're admitting you identify with CNN??! Dang, I wouldn't have done that.

Just kidding and I for one certainly wasn't attacking you. It is interesting, and curious, thank you for posting it.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
I’m so glad everybody is attacking the messenger and not the message. Are both interchangeable at this point in time? Way to go to advance the topic ATS.

So an entertainment and quasi-propaganda network has an OPINION piece, and we are supposed to give it legitimacy when the same entertainment and quasi-propaganda network would not give you one ounce of credibility if they were aware you were on a website such as ATS ...

Don't mind opposing viewpoints but CNN's a unique place because there was a time when they were a trusted source, had excellent coverage, and reporters covered all viewpoints.

Not a fan of any "news" network where every story you have to vet against 2-3 others as well as get online to see if it is accurate.

Not to mention, one sentence quote from a Top Pentagon official? OK, how about testifying before Congress? Top Pentagon official, you know if you have nothing to hide? I assume the Top Pentagon official is calling Graves and Fravor liars?

Because we aren't chitting on the regular military just the top echelon, Graves and Fravor if they are wrong shouldn't a Top Pentagon official have proof they are wrong?

The Top Brass that are coming across a bit like Nathan R Jessup with paranoid delusions.

Respectfully if you want me to respond to more, then quote the talking points, because I'm in too good of a mood to click on CNN or the Press Democrat right now.

LOL, I've seen it all an ATSer taking up for the MSM, these kids these days...

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: 0bserver1
a reply to: CyberBuddha
I don't take CNN serious in almost everything, I mean literally everything

Agreed. CNN is not credible. CNN is part of the problem. Why should anyone trust their "insights"?

It's a brilliant move by the psyop designers. If CNN doubts it many folk will then believe it out of conditioning. I mean let's be honest: That usually works.

And...I don't think I'm joking? Sounds like a joke, but...

Respectfully with 409,000 average weekday audience, it's not a lot of people really especially if that includes their airport exclusive usage

www.forbes.com... 44d10a68

CNN had its lowest-rated week in more than seven years last week, as the network’s ratings struggles continue. For the week ending March 12, CNN had an average weekday audience of 409,000 viewers, the lowest total day (6 a.m. to 6 a.m. ET) ratings performance since the week of July 6, 2015. Fox News Channel won the week with 1.359 million viewers, followed by MSNBC (673,000 viewers).

Among viewers 25-54, the demographic group most valued by advertisers, CNN’s total day ratings delivery was 81,000 viewers—which represents the lowest rated week in the key demo since 2014. Fox News won the week with an average audience of 172,000 viewers, and MSNBC was third overall with 71,000 viewers.

a reply to: putnam6

Yeah, but think of all the headlines and crap we have to endure here and elsewhere. I mean we get splattered with it regardless.

Looks to me that some posters here on ATS are severely brainwashed. Has it occurred to you guys that for example a (R) or (D) politician can have a good idea, regardless of party affiliation? But in your closed minds that seems to be an impossibility because one party must always be wrong.

So CNN can’t possibly have a good, thought provoking article on its website, because it’s CNN! 🤦🏽‍♂️

This close minded approach is even more ridiculous in the face of the subject matter, but it clearly shows that some of you have already made up your minds about this phenomenon. Confirmation bias is a drag and a guarantee for delivering wrong results.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
Looks to me that some posters here on ATS are severely brainwashed. Has it occurred to you guys that for example a (R) or (D) politician can have a good idea, regardless of party affiliation? But in your closed minds that seems to be an impossibility because one party must always be wrong.

So CNN can’t possibly have a good, thought provoking article on its website, because it’s CNN! 🤦🏽‍♂️

This close minded approach is even more ridiculous in the face of the subject matter, but it clearly shows that some of you have already made up your minds about this phenomenon. Confirmation bias is a drag and a guarantee for delivering wrong results.

Funny I had the same argument about Candace Owens with another poster recently. The difference is I've shown you sources where CNN has lied their azzes off. Whereas even with her semi questionable quote Candace was statistically on to something.

Regardless I have seen the "story" elsewhere where now, it's non-story, it's just an opinion, why is this one any more valid than another? As if CNN has stumbled onto a unique unheard-of opinion on the topic.

We wouldn't know anymore because you gave us one measly sentence quote, so kind of hard to judge either way, regardless have heard enough CNN exclusives to know it would likely make me roll my eyes till they got stuck in the back of my head.

I haven't made up my mind about the phenomena at all, I waiting for actual evidence or the DoD response beyond

Wahhhhh! This will make people who work here feel bad.

No more no less

On this subject, you don't think interested people haven't read differing opinions, pretty sure I've probably read others here that think the same as CNN.

I did read the sizzling and sensational expose on the truth behind the Congressional hearings on UAPS, and yes it's conclusions have been pointed out here as well. It's mostly Grusch believing stories from one or 2 people the pilots Graves and Fravor never mention seeing bodies, and there are numerous times pilots see anomalous objects that have benign origins, ie swamp gas, Jupiter etc.

Please educate me more if I missed anything pertinent, but that is the crux of the article. But much like CNN the DoD hasn't been exactly truthful over the years either, whats a little oversight gonna hurt? If they are being honest. They have hidden behind the National Security designation over and over, it's become a crutch to cover, don't look at what I am doing.

Our military looked impotent and incompetent as the Chinese spy balloon transverse the whole country, and they lied about that and would have continued to lie if there weren't pictures and it was obvious what was happening.

Ain't it funny it's balloons now and ballons with project "Mogul" excuse too.

www.cnn.com...

CNN
—
Over the course of 25 years, 11 seasons, 218 episodes, and two movies, FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully attempted to unravel a government conspiracy of extraterrestrial proportions on “The X-Files” as an all-powerful Deep State covered up research on non-human biological matter and alien murders of Americans. How foolish of them, when in real life all it seemed to take was one whistleblower talking on a second-tier cable news channel earlier this summer about hearing someone else’s stories of dead UFO pilots for Congress to hold a hearing in order to expose the whole conspiracy on its own!

I agree 100% with Tim Burchett, we got to remember it's not just aliens here either, the DoD isn't supposed to be working on unauthorized black budget weapons systems either.

I am skeptical. Where's the evidence?

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
I just came across this article on the CNN website:

www.cnn.com...

The opinion piece is very skeptical about Grusch and his claims. It points out that we had Congressional hearings about this subject before, but nothing has changed!

Unfortunately, I have to reluctantly agree with the article. We are let to believe that we’re on a steep path to disclosure, but when you take away the hoopla we’re exactly where we’ve been for 80 years.

originally posted by: CyberBuddha
So CNN can’t possibly have a good, thought provoking article on its website, because it’s CNN! 🤦🏽‍♂️

This close minded approach is even more ridiculous in the face of the subject matter, but it clearly shows that some of you have already made up your minds about this phenomenon. Confirmation bias is a drag and a guarantee for delivering wrong results.

I sort of understand the distrust of CNN, but since it's an opinion piece and not written by a CNN staffer, it's not really as potentially tainted as the mainstream CNN content pushing the propaganda they're told to push. Maybe if you had called it a Jason Colavito article instead of a CNN article you might have had less complaints?

Jason Colavito has historically researched things like alternative archaeology, the pyramids, and ancient aliens. Then he started getting more into researching the UFO topic because of the crossover between the ancient alien theories and more recent UFO stories. So whether people agree with his opinions or conclusions, hopefully they will still find his research interesting. He doesn't just post on CNN, here's an earlier article he posted on another website:

How Washington Got Hooked on Flying Saucers

A collection of well-funded UFO obsessives are using their Capitol Hill connections to launder some outré, and potentially dangerous, ideas.

One of the themes he has run across is that some of the same people have been dominant in pushing certain ideas sometimes for decades. I think Jacques Vallee might have been the one who coined the term "invisible college" but Jason has looked into that topic and discusses it with Mick West in this interview in "Tales from the Rabbit Hole"

TFTRH #53: Jason Colavito - UFOs and the Invisible College, How Did We Get Here?

Robert Bigelow and his interest in the occult is discussed at length, and how the New York Times story in 2017 by Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal had the narrative distorted to make it sound like a "UFO program" (AAWSAP and or AATIP) when actually they were searching for poltergeists and dinobeavers and other strange phenomena at Skinwalker Ranch and Kean and Blumenthal didn't think the NYT readers were ready for that aspect of the story. In reality the NYT may not have published the story if they had told the whole truth and admitted that looking for poltergeists was part of the research that was funded, using taxpayer's money.

Even last week we saw George Knapp, of the Bigelow and associates "invisible college" right there with Grusch, Fravor and Graves in the UAP hearing. Colavito says Bigelow revealed he is no longer interested in UFOs but is still interested in the occult, so I don't know where they are going with this, are they going to say the non-human biologic Grush is talking about is a poltergeist?

So bottom line, whether I agree with Colavito's conclusions or not, I found he did some interesting research and had some interesting things to say that made me think, and I learned some things from him I didn't know from his various articles and interviews, including the article posted in the opening post here. He's just one more voice in the discussion and everyone has to sort out their own views on this topic, not accept anything he says uncritically.

originally posted by: BlueBaby

I am skeptical. Where's the evidence?

Check the links in Colavito's article. When he says eyewitness testimony is unreliable, for example, that's not just his opinion, he links to a scientific American article citing scientific evidence for that claim. J Allen Hynek also collected data on that topic and found that pilots in particular made relatively poor eyewitnesses when it comes to UFOs, despite claims to the contrary by some that anything a pilot says is unassailable and should never be questioned.