I am about 15 minutes from the end of this podcast and it ended while I was typing this.
Here is a skeptical, cynical view of Knapp and Corbell as Devil’s Advocate to try to counteract my growing feeling that they are legit (the “I want to believe” problem):
- They are both involved in “the media” and earn their living by eyes on their work.
- They are both intelligent, articulate, and able to smoothly interact on camera.
- They have a very in-depth knowledge of UFO lore (esp. Knapp) and seem to have extensive connections related to this that go back for years.
- It is possible that they both think all of this is BS and are sort of conducting a “play” of sorts where they act like everything they take in is real.
- In doing this they also maneuver themselves into congressional hearings and onto the most popular podcasts and news programs where they are interviewed at length, never breaking character.
But does that hold up to scrutiny? Are they really that good at acting? Maybe, but isn’t it more likely that they really believe this stuff? And are really getting inside info that they are collecting and selectively disseminating to others in private, eventually making some of it public when the time is right.
The continuing emergence of the back story of Lazar, Lear, and Goodall is fascinating to me. Could this really all be a fabrication? Again, I feel like this is far too complicated and arduous to sustain if it is simply a long con to build out an entertainment career. I feel like this would become obvious over time. Instead, we have increasing connections with critical events happening in the world of “disclosure”.
Very interested in other’s thoughts on this.
I keep coming back to the same line of reasoning. If it’s all baseless and there is nothing to this, why are we seeing very specific wording in legislation?
In today’s politics, where everything is partisan, one would think that a fabricated story would follow the same trend. Yet, this issue is currently the most bipartisan.
Corbell and Knapp have been active in this area for quite some time. Like all individuals, they have their own goals, aspirations, and motivations. For the most part, their statements have proven accurate. George is notably cautious with his choice of words and has a more pessimistic view on disclosure, possibly due to his three decades of experience in the field. In contrast, Corbell comes across as more audacious.
I simply can’t understand the animosity towards either of them. At the very least, they are taking action.
Ok, thanks for saying this, I’m glad I’m not the only one.
If it wasn’t for the congressional hearing, the legislation, and my own personal experience I would definitely be much more cautious about putting my faith in them. I’m still reserved as it is, because of the historic roller coaster nature of government inquiries and attempts to bring disclosure.
Since we’re talking, I’ll put on the tinfoil hat. It feels to me, without proof, like a significant event is on the horizon and there’s a faction who wants as much time to prepare people psychologically as possible while there’s another faction who wants to keep people from learning “the truth” for as long as possible. This event is likely a couple of years off, but I can imagine sightings and other interactions will become increasingly common leading up to it.
In my whimsical moments I imagine that “giant ships hovering over major cities” type of event happening and how the world would change. It’s also interesting to think of the entire planet receiving a telepathic download at the same time: “Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”. :)
Ok, thanks for saying this, I’m glad I’m not the only one.
You’re definitely not the only one!
Since we’re talking, I’ll put on the tinfoil hat. It feels to me, without proof, like a significant event is on the horizon and there’s a faction who wants as much time to prepare people psychologically as possible while there’s another faction who wants to keep people from learning “the truth” for as long as possible. This event is likely a couple of years off, but I can imagine sightings and other interactions will become increasingly common leading up to it.
It’s an interesting thought and one that is speculated by some in the topic.
In my whimsical moments I imagine that “giant ships hovering over major cities” type of event happening and how the world would change. It’s also interesting to think of the entire planet receiving a telepathic download at the same time: “Be sure to drink your Ovaltine”. :)
It would be interesting to see if we can come together as a species if we all simultaneously realized how pointless these conflicts were.
That’s really my dream.
A realization that we have built the world we live in and could build a different world of we wanted to.
There is generational trauma that prevents a lot of people from trusting others enough to even believe this is possible.
If we could see an example of it and learn from it, with a little help from tech that makes resource conflicts meaningless, we might get there.
I don’t think a threat narrative will accomplish this. That will make us pull deeper into a fear based hierarchy that would be even more likely to result in conflict.
This is why I like to stick to fact based understanding of the phenomenon; my mind really tends to wander into the speculation. Fun but not necessarily productive. :)
Part of where I’m stuck with The Phenomenon is the manipulation. I have to be careful and cognizant of my speculation about what it is and what it wants. I believe it is guiding us in a certain direction.
What I don’t know is whether that direction is beneficial to us, to it, or to both of us. That is what is unsettling.
Going to give this a listen and update.