“Their psyops are smart, reactive, and contextual, maintaining strategic ambiguity, flooding the noosphere with misinformation”
Speaking as an outspoken UAP transparency topic proponent, if your own goal was to poison whatever well Rat collective opinion represents, you could hardly have done better than the style of your post.
And I’m saying that as someone who must also take some some sort of sick delight in antagonizing Rat opinion-o-sphere (the Ratgeist?).
https://​​www.astralcodexten.com/​​p/​​open-hidden-open-thread-4235/​​comment/​​223253023
″I’m something like the world’s #1 UFO expert”? Could you turn off your readers any more expediently with such a claim? UFOlogy attracts thousands of readers—do you really think you know more than the most calmly informed of them, or feel that such a rank-ordering is even constructive?
Well since you were familiar with the DJT tweet on releasing UAP files, you’re probably tracking this fresher development as well:
https://​​www.astralcodexten.com/​​p/​​open-thread-424/​​comment/​​225258377
What do you map out as possible etiologies for his disappearance?
Well the 🛸 discussion continues in today’s ACX OT https://​​www.astralcodexten.com/​​p/​​open-thread-426/​​comment/​​232146722
>classified under a memo by Don Quarles
so a statement like this for example. May be true, may not be true. Stating it outright without citation to source is going to repel people who aren’t bought into your ontology. Even me, I can tell you lots about bureaucratic developments during the period of Quarles’ ascent and in the organizational space that he inhabited (guessing fewer than .01% of readers could say same), but I still couldn’t have made that statement. It’s beside the point that I would like to know what you’re citing. The point is, making source-less statements in a contested ontology will repel the topic’s opponents.
I’m afraid I don’t know much about Ms. Theron.