I'm curious how good our airspace monitoring is today. I.e., how large does an intruder need to be, and how long does it need to persist, to have an odds-on chance of being detected. The military won't advertise their capabilities here but maybe someone has a credible estimate?
The idea of picking a random region and monitoring it in detail across the EM spectrum is an interesting one. I would liken it to the Hubble Deep Field – stare deeply at a random spot and see what you learn. If nothing else it would set an upper bound on UAP rate and give data on the distribution of meteors.
But a limited hangout leaves pieces of truth to be bickered over. If the truth does nothing to cease the argument because of a purposeful limit of the framing then it is a tool of obfuscation, and no one can know what to believe. A limited hangout is only employed by someone who knows much more than they are letting on and destabilizing narratives by omission. Small but incomplete truths given genuinely in the absence of overarching knowlesge are not misleading, just incomplete. It's about intent, if you are telling a small truth to protect a larger truth from being exposed then its a limited hangout.
The public has no position to stand other than rampant distrust of those who could ultimately reveal the truth.
Generations of gaslighting and limited hangouts have had their exact desired effect, no one knows what to believe.
If the people can be held divisi continue on topics like this then no members of the public can build common trust with each other in order to stop the abuse of our psyches, and the public will do what it has always done, endure.
The disclosures have done little but give people new reasons to argue, and I fear we are playing right into the hands of those that would benefit. We seem to only get information once those who could be held accountable and be made examples of are gone, with the purpose of fueling the fires instead of informing the people.
I'd like to say that I have confidence in your work, but unfortunately this perversion of the truth is likely beyond any panels pay grade to rectify. Still, I hope these efforts are fruitful and I will be waiting with baited breath for something that can be swallowed.
The "desired effect" of a "limited hangout" is not "no one knows what to believe". It's to share a subset of information with the public, so they can know that (but not everything).
I'm curious how good our airspace monitoring is today. I.e., how large does an intruder need to be, and how long does it need to persist, to have an odds-on chance of being detected. The military won't advertise their capabilities here but maybe someone has a credible estimate?
The idea of picking a random region and monitoring it in detail across the EM spectrum is an interesting one. I would liken it to the Hubble Deep Field – stare deeply at a random spot and see what you learn. If nothing else it would set an upper bound on UAP rate and give data on the distribution of meteors.
But a limited hangout leaves pieces of truth to be bickered over. If the truth does nothing to cease the argument because of a purposeful limit of the framing then it is a tool of obfuscation, and no one can know what to believe. A limited hangout is only employed by someone who knows much more than they are letting on and destabilizing narratives by omission. Small but incomplete truths given genuinely in the absence of overarching knowlesge are not misleading, just incomplete. It's about intent, if you are telling a small truth to protect a larger truth from being exposed then its a limited hangout.
The public has no position to stand other than rampant distrust of those who could ultimately reveal the truth.
Generations of gaslighting and limited hangouts have had their exact desired effect, no one knows what to believe.
If the people can be held divisi continue on topics like this then no members of the public can build common trust with each other in order to stop the abuse of our psyches, and the public will do what it has always done, endure.
The disclosures have done little but give people new reasons to argue, and I fear we are playing right into the hands of those that would benefit. We seem to only get information once those who could be held accountable and be made examples of are gone, with the purpose of fueling the fires instead of informing the people.
I'd like to say that I have confidence in your work, but unfortunately this perversion of the truth is likely beyond any panels pay grade to rectify. Still, I hope these efforts are fruitful and I will be waiting with baited breath for something that can be swallowed.
The "desired effect" of a "limited hangout" is not "no one knows what to believe". It's to share a subset of information with the public, so they can know that (but not everything).